Re: "Reputations" are more than just nominalist hot air

[jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)]

James Donald writes:
> > No it should not be "clarified and examined"

Timothy C. May writes
> Why not try to clarify and examine such an important 
> concept? Where's the danger in gaining a better 
> understanding?

When somebody wants to "clarify and examine" a concept
that is already well understood, this usually means that
he wants to change the meaning of that concept.

Where the concept is something fundamental to existing
social structures, the result can be utterly ruinous
(for example Socrates).

In Hal's case he wants to "clarify and examine" something
that is crucial to the future that we all want to achieve.

It is clear from some of the things he said that his "clarified"
meaning is in fact substantially different from the correct meaning.

For example he asks a number of questions that are not meaningful
or answerable if "reputation" means reputation, but are meaningful
if "reputation" means credentials.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com