(November 1, 2021 at 3:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(November 1, 2021 at 3:00 pm)emjay Wrote: Okay, I just mean, adding confusion in the sense of adding confusion to say a discussion of Aristotlian causes, because that's about explaining things... if you can't even agree at that point on what a thing is, it seems like it completely ruins, or sidetracks the discussion.
MN is subtle in this regard, as it's not about whether or not we can agree on what a thing is. It presumes (or correctly observes) that we can and do agree on that - but that many "things" don't actually fit the agreement of Things we ourselves proffer.
Fair enough... I must admit it felt kind of circular what I wrote there (that might be a non-sequitor, or not, not sure )