Chris, (01)
I don't want to get involved with defending Heidegger. (02)
On the other hand, the kind of logic one adopts does
influence the kinds of ontological categories one might
choose to represent by means of the symbols of that logic. (03)
For example, the quantifiers of predicate calculus
(or any equivalent form, such as Peirce's graphs) are
not well suited to dealing with continuous stuff,
such as water. (04)
Even worse, what about stuff like happiness?
"Happiness" seems to be a mass noun like "water",
but it's even harder to measure or refer to. That
makes it a prime category to be ignored. But does
that mean it doesn't exist? (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|