[MD] Nonrelativizably Used Predicates

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Orn,


> Tuukka:
> An example of an abstract noun is: "bravery". This noun has the property
> of being the opposite of "cowardice". This is kindergarten stuff.
>
> Ron:
> "Bravery" is not relative to a particular experience, as say a concrete noun like "strawberry" is.
> This IS the context of your term "relativizably" . That the term is predicated on a concrete
> relative meaning. One that is relative to a particular experience that most all may agree to.
> Abstract nouns do not have a corresponding relative experience and are not agreed apon
> and are mostly subjective in meaning. What is brave to you may not be brave to another.
> This is 2nd grade stuff.
> Consequently Tuuka, when one uses concrete nouns in logical strings of meaning they bear
> a consistancy while abstact nouns do not. THATS why they are not used in analytical philosophy
> not because they are not "allowed" but because they yield inconsistancies in meaning.

Tuukka:
If we are determining, whether a predicate is used nonrelativizably, it 
is irrelevant whether it looks like an abstract or a concrete noun. 
Nonrelativizability is not a property of a predicate, but a property of 
the way in which it is used.

>
>
>
> Tuukka:
> And never, ever, solve the Poincare conjecture, the four color theorem,
> and myriads of others. Just sticks and stones and a happy Ron.
>
> Ron:
> Obviously you subscribe to your own brand of bullshit.
>   
> .Have fun saving the free world goldmember.

Ron:

Why don't you go say that to Pirsig, smart aleck? :D

-Tuukka