Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:55:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: Re: BHA: truth Hi Doug and everybody, Thanks for your ruminations -- at least now I know I'm in good company. Does it make sense, do you think, to distinguish between (1) ideas that refer to non-conceptual relationships which we feel confident in trusting would be the case in the absence of people; (2) ideas that refer to *conceptual* relationships, e.g., pi, that we beieve would hold in the absence of people; and (3) ideas that refer to relationships, including conceptual ones, which would be non-existent/unintelligible in the absence of people (and I can already see this last group being broken down into those ideas which, in the *PRESENCE* of people, (a) are essential to thoght, and those which (b) are not)? I'm finding myself favoring something like 3A, for truth, but I worry that something about the whole enterprise is fishy. I'm off today to try to locate an article Wallace refered me/us to: Bhaskar on the ontological status of concepts. Has anyone read it? Ruth --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005