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.
-
-
Science does need the notion of reality to progress. This is all the more evident in the cosmological debates. If we were only battling out on the matter of epistemological problems we could never go beyond the ideological battle of atheism vs Christian teleology
-
it was only in the naming of a concrete thing, in the discovery of redshifts, of other galaxies, and the cosmic microwave background, that could make progress beyond that deadlock.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
...Like some underlying stuff out there on to which we project structures (the most perceptive form of realism). Realism should designate neutral stuff, but then if it is about neutrality then why sweat over it?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.