Dear Pat,
>...
> To return to "individual". If this is taken to mean "not having
> instances" (or maybe, "of a kind that inherently does not have
> instances", to rule out the empty set) then my problem with it is that
> the actual logic of CL makes *everything* into a non-individual,
> because CL allows any name to be used in a relation or predicate
> position. And IMO this is the right way to approach this issue: it is
> not an ontological matter at all, but a *logical* matter. (01)
MW: At the language level I agree. A good language makes the smallest number
of commitments possible. CL is easily the best logical language I have come
across. In any case, just because any term can be used as a predicate does
not mean that you have to do that. It's your philosophical ontology that
leads you to choose not to do that. So individuals (in my sense) are amongst
those things that you would not choose to place in the predicate position. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (04)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (06)
|