Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> So following your analogy, you seem to hold that one could say
> "categories of the understanding just are anything described as a
> mathematical category". And that, I think, is ludicrous, because it's
> very hard to find any universal which is *not* a category under that
It seems to me that I have to maintain that categories of the understanding
can be described as a mathematical category. You would also have to
find the theories of some prominent philosophers of mind/cognitive
scientists ridiculous, if you find this implication too naive.
I won't state whether I agree with the following argument, but there is
a radical argument that goes like this:
"There is no subjective phenomena; they are illusionary."
The reference of "they" is a bit complicated here, but I'm certain
that the argument can be understood with this concise statement.
What is your opinion?
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara