From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 17:49:42 GMT
SCOTT: I would
>argue the same with holding to anti-essentialism. You present it as
>"searching for essences has never got anyone anywhere", and promoting
>nominalism in its stead. But this sidesteps the fact that you need essences
>(concepts) to even state a nominalist position. So to claim nominalism you
>are in effect postulating a materialist metaphysics, which requires the (in
>my view) hopeless task of showing how concepts are fully explainable as
>atoms moving in the void.
I am not clear on how essences involve postulating a
material metaphysics?
Essence seems to be meaning to me. To understand essence
it seems you are trying to understand the meaning of meaning.
In distinguishing the levels why can't it be described
as understanding the essence of each level.
Do concepts and essence have to be linked?
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 17:41:31 GMT