[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Reputations" are more than just nominalist hot air
-----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-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----