David McDivitt writes
> Realists don't worry about conflict resolution very much. Right is right
> is right, right? So if a person has a problem it's a problem with what's
> right, right?
Actually, we would make that accusation against you! We live
in the same reality as everyone else (to our way of thinking),
and so resolving what is true is a common task that we can
all engage in. It's people who live in their own worlds (or,
like you, say that they do) who hardly need to rectify discrepancy.
They can "agree to disagree". What's to prevent one nominalist
from saying, "well, I don't *like* so-and-so's theory, and there
is nothing that you can show me or say to change my mind"? But
this will probably be yet one more question that you totally
ignore.
> The point is debate, dialectic, and conflict are essential
> for the emergence of truth. Realism gums up the works.
But isn't truth, according to you, what people create? So
why should they have to create *one* single thing? Debate,
seems rather idle, I would think, if each has his own truth.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT