Anyone thinking wholes and parts are ontic categories is either a fraudester or a stupid philosopher (i.e. doubly fraudster). There is no such ontic categories. You construct new wholes to reveal the underlying fragments, you glue the fragments to uncover new wholes ad infinitum.
-
-
The transcendental shopping list that needs no evaluation against the shelves of the grocery store in the adjacent cosmic locale is not science either. Stop reinventing OOO, it's not a good look.
-
You keep mentioning cosmic locales or universe. What are these really? How do you know they are there? What are their attributes that make them necessary? And more importantly, why do you think what I told you is a version of OOO?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.