drifting…in and out of universals
January 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Do Mentalisations Exist or Only He Who Thinks? :: drifting…in and out of universals :: drifting…in and out of universals :: Do Mentalisations Exist or Only He Who Thinks?
MichaelE (philosophy) versus JudE (sophism) brings this to bear:
> ME: Precisely. Which only goes to show that the category of “something”
> is ontologically PRIOR to “frog” and “lily-pad”, and NOT merely derived
> (for convenience and by convention) from summing together all the
> singular entities (which are ontologically invisible without the
> category, “something”) into a convenient pop-up sign called “pronoun”.
Precisely, Michael, which is why I have hesitated in calling the likes of
something, anything, thing, etc, abstractions: they have precisely not been
extracted, abstracted, generalised, drawn, modelled, etc, from this thing
and that thing in some exercise of rough commonness, etc, etc. We always
already have wind of thinghood, be-ing, stuffness, matter, etc, in order
that we can ever (re)cognise this thing and that thing as this thing and
that thing and as a thing at all; moreover, despite contrary claims (it will
have nothing of be-ing and other ‘fictions’), science utterly depends for
its dependability on this prior-ority of be-ing (which is no abstraction,
rather is the most concrete). But that’s just me.
regards (and a raised fist salute)
michaelP
