tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8967661913138312331..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Dawson's ConceptsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68258676555655821432007-04-26T07:21:00.000-04:002007-04-26T07:21:00.000-04:00Concisely,"...Concepts are what underlie predicati...<A HREF="http://danielmorgan.name/Articles/atheism/logic%20-%20ontology/cocchiarella_ontology.pdf" REL="nofollow">Concisely</A>,<BR/><BR/>"<I>...Concepts are what underlie predication in thought and language, which in conceptualism means that concepts cannot exist independently of the socio-biologically based capacity humans have for thought and language. The universals of realism, on the other hand, are what underlie predication in reality--e.g., the states of affairs that obtain in the world (as in natural realism), or the propositions that constitute the objective truths and falsehoods of the world (as in logical realism). These universals are assumed to exist independently of the human capacity for thought and language -- and in logical realism (as a modern form of Platonism), unlike natural realism (as a modern form of Aristotelianism), they are assumed to exist independently of the causal structure of the world as well, and even independently of whether they are logically realizable or not...<BR/>The properties and relations of natural realism, for example, are posited to account for the causal structure of the world; and, in that regard, they are not assumed to be the semantic grounds for the correct or incorrect application of predicate expressions except when those predicate expressions are explicitly assumed to represent such a natural property or relation -- an assumption that can only be made </I>a posteriori<I>...<BR/>they [natural properties and relations] are what in the causal order may correspond to some, but by no means all, of the concepts we can form and the predicate expressions we can introduce in our use of language...<BR/>If natural realism is to be a viable formal ontology at all, in other words, then in principle it must be able to provide thecausal ground for one or another form of conceptualism--or, to be more precise, of one or another form of conceptual natural realism...<BR/>without some associated form of realism, natural or otherwise, conceptualism is at best only a truncated ontology, and it is dubious that it alone can provide an adequate account of the different modes or categories of being</I>..."<BR/><BR/>We've <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/machiavelli-rises-from-grave.html" REL="nofollow">talked about this (conceptualism and ontology) before</A> (sections 6-8 <A HREF="http://danielmorgan.name/Articles/atheism/logic%20-%20ontology/cocchiarellla_logicontology.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>).nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49895423087202979112007-04-26T07:13:00.000-04:002007-04-26T07:13:00.000-04:00*SIGH*B O R I N G !Scripture Shchmipture....A book...*SIGH*<BR/><BR/>B O R I N G !<BR/><BR/>Scripture Shchmipture....<BR/><BR/>A book says it...I believe it...that settles it.<BR/><BR/>L A M E !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46798652776559865302007-04-26T00:50:00.000-04:002007-04-26T00:50:00.000-04:00Very good. It's rather distressing to have to cor...Very good. It's rather distressing to have to correct Bethrick so much. I realize the fallen, unregenerate mind can't understand spiritual truth, but you'd think he'd be able at least represent the opposing position with some clarity.<BR/><BR/>The view you are taking is certainly demonstrable from Scripture. Let's take the concept of the Law. The Law is revealed in propositions. However, it also revealed in a Person, Christ. Speaking of Christ, the Law points to Christ. The Tabernacle prefigures Christ. The Tabernacle, as well as the Temple, is a picture of the universe, God Himself, Christ, and a whole host of other images. Certainly, then, Scripture shows us that God thinks in ways we do not, for His thoughts are the picture, so to speak, whereas ours require words. The difference between us and God, then is the difference between a description of a masterpiece painting and the painting itself. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words," yet God has chosen to leave us the words, and He has given the generations of those whose history is recorded some marvelous pictures, culminating in the greatest, the revelation of His Law, His Word, His Thought, indeed Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com