>>> cbcox at ilstu.edu 06/04/01 05:39PM >>>
Categorization always (when rational) indicates a context. Water animals
can be a useful category in some casual conversations.
Even animal, vegetable, mineral can be legitimate in some contexts. Both would be idiotic in a systematic study of relations in the physical world (the physical sciences). That is what I meant when I said that nominalism was a powerful tool but a vicious master. Careless catetorization kills people, and the topic is not really one that is usefully the subject of humor. For example, the catetory of "violence in general" is at the very heart of legitimizations of bourgeois tyranny. Categories are arbitrary but the selection of a context radically limits that arbitrariness.
((((((((
CB: Are mathematical or logical categories rational in the context of discussing categories ? Does zero mathematically categorize the concept of nothing ? Is nothing or zero a unified category ?
Can only nothing come from nothing ?
Charles Brown wrote:
>
> >>> jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com 05/31/01 02:10AM >>>
> >>> [ ... ] do not constitute a unified category
> >>
> >> neither does the category [ ... ]
> >
> > Nor does the category [ ... ]
>
> Er ... what category does?
>
> ((((((((
>
> CB: How about the category "nothing " ?