tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post5267248090379140487..comments2023-06-07T08:50:33.280-05:00Comments on Immanent Transcendence: Reality of Generals vs. Universalskhadimirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-80453173734886888832012-03-06T16:22:15.157-06:002012-03-06T16:22:15.157-06:00It was Cathy Legg to be exact, who forwarded her a...It was Cathy Legg to be exact, who forwarded her articles. She's bridging the contemporary analytic debates between nominalism and realism, and Peirce. I can forward the free-access links.<br /><br />Leon, my experience with that logic is limited, but I do not believe it can handle that sufficiently. Instead, it is focused on the logical implication of emptiness, non-substantiality, etc. It is worth looking into.<br /><br />No, not required. Informative? Perhaps. Much more informative for process and temporality.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-7342617467614712872012-03-06T15:45:02.237-06:002012-03-06T15:45:02.237-06:00"Some Peirceans from the Peirce Society lists..."Some Peirceans from the Peirce Society listserv came in to save the day." What did they say? Just curious.<br /><br />Also: I, too, am fascinated by medieval logicians and have a tremendous respect for medieval philosophy in its rigor and exactness. Because I am not familiar with the *logic* of Nagarjuna however, it would be interesting to approach an Asianist who could address how the problem of realism vs. nominalism plays out there, or in Asian thought in general. I am wondering how that conversation would translate if at all.<br /><br />There is a point, though. Are there resources in Eastern thought that are not available in Western thought which are required to think about the nominalism/realism debate?Leonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-8830113022906392272012-03-06T08:02:22.281-06:002012-03-06T08:02:22.281-06:00Because medieval logicians took the nominalism vs....Because medieval logicians took the nominalism vs. scholastic realism debate as a center-piece of their philosophy, and I find contemporary scholars of those debates to be particularly insightful on those issues. I am also not convinced that we know so much more about truth and reality than the medievals, especially when discussing metaphysics.<br /><br />I am familiar both with Nagarjuna and Shankara, especially the logic of the former's school, but do not wish to conceptually translate so much. The intellectual reserves of the west are sufficient for this task. Now that I think about it, I am not aware of either of them entering into this debate, though I might be able to find an analogue in Nagarjuna. Might.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-53401022295508671232012-03-05T18:03:35.172-06:002012-03-05T18:03:35.172-06:00Don't worry. Some Peirceans from the Peirce S...Don't worry. Some Peirceans from the Peirce Society listserv came in to save the day.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.com