On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:09:23 -0500 Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> writes:
> and your point?
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Dennis Claxton
> <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > WS:
> >
> >
> >> Philosophically, I am a nominalist
> >
> >
> >
> > A couple of things from Adorno on 20th century nominalism:
> >
> >
> > ".... the nominalism, disseminated as prescientific consciousness,
> and today
> > once more commanding science from there, which makes a profession
> out of its
> > naivete -the positivistic instrumentarium seldom lacks the pride
> in being
> > naïve, and the category of "everyday language" is its echo -does
> not bother
> > with the historical coefficient in the relationship of the general
> and the
> > particular. The true preponderance [Vorrang] of the particular
> could only be
> > obtained by means of the transformation of the general. To simply
> install it
> > as something existent, is a complementary ideology. It conceals
> how much the
> > specific has become the function of the general, which, according
> to its
> > logical form, it was all along. What nominalism clings to as its
> most prized
> > possession is utopia; thus its hatred of utopian thinking, that of
> the
> > difference from what exists."
> >
> > (Above is Dennis Redmond's translation)
> > http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/ndtrans.html
I am sure it reads much better in the original gibberish.
Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ee800b28a8cda59644st06vuc