Re: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Missing Ingredients
Tom Johnston wrote:
> Murray said of nominalism that it is: In a nutshell, the oversimplification
> of the world, the idea that by putting a name on something you somehow
> understand it.
>
> In nutshells, as I said earlier today, realism will always come out looking
> better than nominalism. Johnson refuted Berkeley by kicking a rock. Realism
> is solid, common-sense, linked up to the world stuff. Nominalism is
> airy-fairy sophistical word play. If the best soundbite wins, I don't want
> to play.
[...]
> With apologies to my realist friend, Murray.
Actually, the polarity isn't nominalism-realism (Nominalism-Realism).
I don't consider myself a Realist, if you mean that school of thought.
As I stated recently, the closest nominalistic label :-) I could put
on my views would be either Taoist and/or Pragmatist. I'm still
learning what the latter means. I've also been reading Robert Brandom
recently, and agree with his approach, noting that hard core Peirceans
are angry with Brandom for "stealing" from him. Regardless of the
truth of that, there's enough alignment that I find myself in whatever
camp one might find a Taoist/Pragmatist/Brandomite/Peircean, statements
from Groucho Marx notwithstanding...
Murray
PS. I'd not attempt to answer what Brandom is about, suffice it to
say that it's not representation but expression that is at the
heart of ontology. Social-linguistic, not atomic. That I agree with.
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
Monkeys use thoughts to control robotic arm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/13/MN2018.DTL
Bush uses media expertly to push apocalyptic view
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091403J.shtml