Survival of the fittest.

[Arjen]

Pyth,

I am glad you liked Ockham. I liked it a lot too. Perhaps a discussion on it would be nice, if you are willing.

The relevence of Ockham is that it shows that "survival of the fittest" is a universal and has nothing to do with what in reality takes place. It even is an a posteriori though object. Thereby it is proven that such a thing has nothing to do with nature-an-sich, nor with any "state of nature", unless such a state would be defined as not related to the way things take place in nature.

[Pythagorean]

Arjen,

That would imply that no one concept can encompass any plurality of other sub-concepts or individuals, which is absurd. For example, since we may justly consider mankind to be a species of being then the concept mankind must have at least some validity and therefore some explanatory power. Furthermore, I think you are giving Ockham's theory too much leeway. I do not think that if it were rightly construed that it would not rule out the categorization of any plurality of individuals as falling within the purview of one concept (or "intention" of the soul).

I believe you are misapplying the case for nominalism and I believe further that such a case merely applies to metaphysical entities and not formal categories such as species and logical concepts.



--

[Arjen]

I think we should discuss universals in the Ockham topic and I think we need a new metaphysical topic because I think your need to adjust your definitions. After that we should return here to re-discuss my previous statements.

How about that?

[Pythagorean]

Yes, Arjen. That sounds good. I will take time to slowly re-read Ockham and will think about it some more. And then, after our discussions there, like you say, we can get back to settle this topic afterwards.

[Arjen]

I like that you are picking up this glove Pyth for I have only just begun.