From: "henry sholar" <H_SHOLAR-AT-marta.uncg.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:44:01 EST Subject: Re: Archetypes >... but simply that "tree" >is just such a conceptual category--therefore, it is exactly "tree" that we >don't see. What we are _seeing_, in other words, is simply something that we >are calling a "tree." What we are seeing is always something other than what >we are calling it (and something other than whatever we might call it), in >other words. > >Steve what does it gain to call "tree" a "conceptual category"? why not call it a "lexical entry"? a name? etc. etc. to call it a "conceptual category" you are insinuating some sort of philosophical story that has to do with concepts and categories, these then insinuate "minds" over and against "world" or "worlds" and so forth into the traditional/modern bifircations which heidegger (& others) describes as theories in need of metaphysical underpinnings... hen --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005