Re: Cardinality question

Jesse F. Hughes <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: stephen@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

:> In sci.math Randy Poe <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> : Albert Wagner wrote:
:> :> I'll bet you could guess what it means if you really tried. But
:> :> it's no doubt more fun for you to ask someone else to think for
:> :> you. Who knows? They might make a mistake that you could then
:> :> beat them over the head with it, discrediting /everything/ they say.
:> :> LOL.
:>
:> : You are ambipompulory and this argument is overly
:> : crescizubliant. Do you agree that crescizubliance
:> : implies micromillidangianism or not?
:>
:> : I won't define those words. I'm sure you could guess
:> : what they mean if you really tried. Definitions are just
:> : for people who want others to think for them.
:>
:> : - Randy
:>
:> Philosophers apparently need no definitions. It overly
:> constrains them. They would not be free to truly express
:> themselves if they had to limit themselves with definitions.

: Albert Wagner is no more representative of philosophers than James
: Harris is representative of mathematicians[1] or Archimedes Plutonium
: of physicists.

I was not being entirely serious. However, he does seem to be
representative of the folks who post from the philosophy groups.
Of course my sampling is rather biased as I only see those who
crosspost to sci.math. On the last go around one of the "philosophers"
had this to say about technical definitions (jargon)
Jargon is the fight against ambiguity. Unfortunately for
philosophy, because of the direction of its inquiry, jargon
can't win.
They seem to love their ambiguity. Lots of elbow room.

Stephen
.