Chris Partridge wrote:
> VQ> What I
>> say is: once you accept the distinction between continuants and
>> occurents, some of these definitions of avalanche speak of continuants,
>> some of occurrents. So the question 'is an avalanche an occurrent or a
>> continuant' is ill-posed, since one does not know what you are asking
>> about -- the mass of snow or its falling. Once you do *not* accept the
>> distinction, the question is even more ill-posed.
>
> If I am investigating what can be a continuant or an occurrent - can I not
> ask whether, when I am looking at an avalanche (whether there is any
> definition or not), it makes sense to talk of there being with a continuant
> or an occurrent or both - and how do I decide this. Say, for example, there
> cannot, in principle, be an avalanche occurrent, then it does not make sense
> for me to talk of one. What I would be interested in is some explanation of
> what these principles are.
>
> As Bill has noted, the question is not semantic, but metaphysical. (01)
But of course. But to decide how to distinguish whether an avalanche is
an occurrent or a continuant -- the metaphysical criteria -- you need to
decide what it is that you call 'avalanche'. My comment was related
solely to the question whether an avalanche is a continuant or an
occurrent; it was not supposed to be a suggestion for a criterion for
distinguishing ones from the others. (02)
vQ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|