I asked nicely, and I'll ask nicely again. Please explain the axiom in your own words. And, if you are willing to put in some extra effort, to explain why one must follow such an axiom. Just yesterday in that discussion about philosophy, Arnold joked about ideas that couldn't be easily and accurately summarized. Is that what we're dealing with here?
I asked nicely, and I'll ask nicely again. Please explain the axiom in your own words. And, if you are willing to put in some extra effort, to explain why one must follow such an axiom. Just yesterday in that discussion about philosophy, Arnold joked about ideas that couldn't be easily and accurately summarized. Is that what we're dealing with here?
After accusing me of knowingly spreading BS, engaging in smears and dirty tricks and ad hominem attacks about secret evil motives, etc. and accusing Arnold of endorsing this.
I did not respond in kind. This is not the kind of interaction that appeals to me.
I rejected all three perspectives, not just the one you are defending, and provided links to explain why. I have nothing more to add.
I'm sorry I really don't have time for this, if the references aren't helpful just ignore them. You may also want to look at the subtitle of Glenn's memoir, out in April, if you think his views are left wing. I have a blurb on the book in case that's of any interest.
It seems like you spent more time explaining that you don't have time while typing out references than it would take to explain the axiom. As near as I can tell from digging around for five minutes the anti-essentialism axiom merely states that for any particular thing or individual with any set of features or attributes there are worlds where the individual won't have one of them. That's... not terribly difficult to understand, and not terribly useful in the conversation; it is basically just saying that unless something is a defining trait of a thing, that thing need not always have the trait. It might always have the trait in the world we happen to inhabit now, of course.
I asked nicely, and I'll ask nicely again. Please explain the axiom in your own words. And, if you are willing to put in some extra effort, to explain why one must follow such an axiom. Just yesterday in that discussion about philosophy, Arnold joked about ideas that couldn't be easily and accurately summarized. Is that what we're dealing with here?
"asked nicely"
After accusing me of knowingly spreading BS, engaging in smears and dirty tricks and ad hominem attacks about secret evil motives, etc. and accusing Arnold of endorsing this.
I did not respond in kind. This is not the kind of interaction that appeals to me.
I rejected all three perspectives, not just the one you are defending, and provided links to explain why. I have nothing more to add.
For the record, YOU opened by accusing realists of being bigots. That IS bull, and being bull, it IS an ad-hominem smear about secret evil motives.
I'm sorry I really don't have time for this, if the references aren't helpful just ignore them. You may also want to look at the subtitle of Glenn's memoir, out in April, if you think his views are left wing. I have a blurb on the book in case that's of any interest.
Well folks, you can't say I didn't try (edit: to give him ample chance to explain himself).
It seems like you spent more time explaining that you don't have time while typing out references than it would take to explain the axiom. As near as I can tell from digging around for five minutes the anti-essentialism axiom merely states that for any particular thing or individual with any set of features or attributes there are worlds where the individual won't have one of them. That's... not terribly difficult to understand, and not terribly useful in the conversation; it is basically just saying that unless something is a defining trait of a thing, that thing need not always have the trait. It might always have the trait in the world we happen to inhabit now, of course.