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

[greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

James Donald writes:

> 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.

Well understood by *who*? You seem to have a strong local definition
for the word "reputation". You seem to believe that freedom itself
depends on folks only using that word in a fashion compatible with your
own use. That's an interesting notion for a sleepy Sunday afternoon,
but you haven't convinced me yet. Perhaps you'd be good enough to
describe what you mean when you use the word "reputation"?

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

When you say "we", who are you referring to? 

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

Who decides what the "correct meaning" of a word is?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQCVAgUBLmoaxH3YhjZY3fMNAQHO/wP8DJhb5eiESy/rmhyv+UwwdA5tLyulZqvH
WdqwAMqb4nyOOMnYo9lhI+gvjnIPtPD/Hf8YvnmwAfDDGR72IIDFQ3xrbApOg73W
nDPsLBvUFMHx5Zh8PCCcaZjHn05rjCXsaAGiixWAh37OjC7qm3/OqLvh3gEsBJX0
iwEf9BSLKYE=
=c8V6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----