home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:632 sci.philosophy.tech:4105 sci.lang:8032
- Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang
- Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!ncar!uchinews!ellis!goer
- From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
- Subject: Re: Theories of meaning not relying solely on sym
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.000040.19912@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Followup-To: sci.cognitive
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
- References: <1992Nov13.100925.2924@news.Hawaii.Edu> <28179@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Nov15.172021.17474@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:00:40 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes (I believe in English):
- >
- >This is a bogus objection, Chris. Once your theory identifies the said
- >transformations, it is a short step indeed to characterize restricted
- >versions thereof, which will be bijections in extension. Then you will
- >want to talk about equivalence classes under the induced relation,
- >thereby committing yourself to abstract propositions and concepts.
- >
- >In general, reification is unavoidable under any reasonable view of
- >ontological commitment. Even that classic would-be example of gratuitous
- >reification of "sakes" from the use of locutions like "for the sake of
- >X", or "for its own sake" is perfectly reasonable, nay, unavoidable, in
- >any systematic discussion of teleological theory of value.
-
- Please! Try to resist the temptation to address topics, using highly
- specialized terms, in newsgroups not likely to be familiar with them.
- Perhaps it's just my inadequate education, but I (a sci.lang) reader
- have absolutely no idea what the poster is saying....
-
- --
-
- -Richard L. Goerwitz goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
- goer@midway.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
-