On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 01:34 -0800, Pat Hayes wrote (among other things): (01)
> ... there are important,
> down-to-earth reasons for using an unsegregated logical language,
> reasons that far transcend any philosophical scruples about the nature
> of non-individual-hood. Basically, one gets the expressive
> advantages of a higher-order language within a purely first-order
> logic. Such a gain is not to be lightly dismissed ...; but more
> fundamentally, the possiblity of using an unsegregated first-order
> language seems to render this whole discussion moot: for what is the
> point of deciding on a classification which is rendered vacuous *as a
> matter of logical necessity* when one uses a modern logical notation?
> Aren't there more important things to worry about? Why not just say,
> you can think of anything as an individual (when you wish to make
> assertions about it) and also as a predicate or relation (when you
> wish to use it make assertions about other things), and this choice of
> of no ontological importance whatsoever. Because if you write your
> axioms in CLIF, it isn't. (02)
For practical purposes, how far would you press the question, "what is
the point of deciding on a classification which is rendered vacuous [by,
e.g., Common Logic]"? Does it only apply to the notion of "individual";
or should we banish all terms that engender argument (as John Sowa
suggests), or those that fill out the upper levels of a taxonomy or
require interpretation by a guru (as you suggest); or could any proposed
classification be subjected to this test? (03)
Regards,
--Paul (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|