At 04:51 PM 6/10/2007, you wrote: (01)
WK:
>I believe I am not. The issue is simply that you can't reasonably ask
>whether X is a continuant or an occurrent (the metaphysical distinction)
>if the term 'X' is used with meanings corresponding to both sides of the
>distinction, and you do not make clear which is the meaning you use. (02)
BS:In my original response to Pat I had this: (03)
>Avalanche theory is based on the distinction
>between granular layers (continuants) and flows
>(which when summed together make the avalanches themselves). (04)
The moral is: if faced with a single word, you sometimes cannot tell
whether it refers to a continuant or an occurrent; in such a case,
you should look at what scientists with expertise in the
corresponding domain believe; encouragingly, they very often seem to
have developed sophisticated theories, as here, resting on an
oh-so-clear distinction between continuants and occurrents.
BS (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|