"David G. McDivitt" wrote:
>
> The essentialism/antiessentialism debate revolves around what an object
> is. Is it the actual thing or is it a linguistic object and hence
> abstract and conceptual? I think it is a fascinating debate. Realize
> when humans talk about the sun, moon, and starts there are no such
> things in a person's head. The cranium just isn't large enough. Words
> must stand for and represent supposed objects. What we do then is
> mentally assemble objects together.
This does not follow. There is no need for the actual objects
rather than perceptions and concepts of them, to be in our head
in order for actual objects to exist in the world outside our
heads.
>
> Givens however, can be questioned infinitely, qualified and requalified
> again and again. How far is established not by the essential nature of
> the given, but by the perseverance and will of the analyst, and at what
> point he feels satisfied. That is a valuation.
>
So, you think base level axioms (irreducible givens) are just a
matter of feeling? In short that they are wholly subjective?
Sorry, but I really have limited time and patience for this kind
of pseudo-philosophical treatment.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT