n a message dated 24/06/2004 18:42:44 GMT Standard Time, [email protected]_
(mailto:crotuca@xxxxxxxxx) writes: My remark about nominalism was hasty but
still essentially true.
Jud has indeed denied the existnce of complex wholes. For example, on his
website he says,
Jud on his Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm_ (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm)
"My position regarding the so-called sorites paradox, or better still the
questions it poses, are part of my nominalist mereological position, whereby I
cognise of abstractions like 'collections' and 'heaps' and 'piles' and
'clouds,' etc., as non-existent, in that it is the individuate particles that exist,
and it is only their existential location of contiguity which we humans
[conveniently] ignore and denote with a collective noun."
Jud:
I do indeed deny the existence of complex wholes, and of course at the same
time deny the existence of existence. For the nominalist [as I keep saying]
that does not stop him employing the linguistic convenience of calling
[referring to] to a cloud of sawdust as a 'cloud,' rather than as a complexity of
individuates [contiguous wood particles]. If we were to have an ontological
discussion however, and the ontological nature of a cloud cropped up, I would be
at great pains to point out, that whilst the wood particles existed, the
cloud didn't — being merely a handy linguistic convenience. [designatum rather
than denotatum]
John:
Both Jud & I have been guilty of failing to respond to each others'
arguments, which is understandable , given that we have lives. So let me restate a
point with great brevity: it is hypocrisy to use an abstraction in a sentence
like " The United Kingdom invaded the Falklands" and then turn around and say,
nominalistically, "of course the United Kingdom doesn't REALLY exist."
Jud:
There is nothing 'hypocritical' in such an ontological observation. When
the PITS [people in the street] use such terms — they are uninterested and
unaware of what 'lies beneath' semantically — when a nominalist employs them, he
or she is perfectly aware that the abstract nouns are purely a timesaving
device and what they refer to doesn't REALLY exist — it is merely a lingual
short cut. When people say: the United Kingdom it is just a damn sight easier
than reeling off a long list of the entitic objects that the word refers too.
The objective land mass of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island, the
rivers, dams, (but not including the Rhine dam which is in 'Germany']
mountains, roads and bridges the men and women and children and dogs and cats and
rats and buildings and ships... blah, blah, blah.... I could continue for a
lifetime and never finish characterising the entitic reality which is the UK.
That is where abstract nouns come in — they are a necessary and vital
convenience to enable communication. But whilst all the material realities of the UK
exist [and you can see them if you visit here] you will never see the UK [or
God or Being] because it isn't here or there or anywhere — it's in your mind
as an abstract overall term [which in itself doesn't exist].
John:
No nominalist to my knowledge has ever presented a rational criterion
according to which one must believe in electrons and desks but one is not required
to believe in abstractions that one employs every day, e. g. the pound (in
either sense). What the nominalist displays is materialist dogma, which
requires defense and has never received one.
Jud:
Ontologically we are not talking about 'belief' here, we are talking about
what EXISTS - not fancies of the imagination. THE pound doesn't exist - A
pound [coin] does. We can believe in the abstraction 'the pound' as a unit of
exchange — in fact such a mutual belief is a vital requirement of any
society in order that commercial intercourse can proceed — but if I sell you a
cabbage, I want to see A metal pound coin in my hand, or have evidence of a
plastic promissory transaction, which means I can go to the bank and withdraw a
hard, shiny, weighty disc of metal which I can put between my teeth and BITE.
Nominalism is the only REAL [serious] threat to transcendentalism. The reason
why modern nominalism needs to put its case is that hitherto nominalists
have ignored the various transcendentalisms as being beneath contempt and have
not deigned to engage with them. I disagree. For me transcendentalism is the
most evil inhuman scourge on the planet whether it be Christian, Judaic,
Islamic and plain old loony Heideggerianism. It must be contested or together they
will erase humankind from the planet.
Jud Evans.
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---