Timeline for Is there a category even more general than "thing"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26 at 8:19 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @JimBalter: Hah <eye roll>! Works for me. | |
| Jun 26 at 7:33 | comment | added | Jim Balter | I of course know what you said ... but it's obviously mistaken. Sorry, but some people just aren't very good at this, and I'm under no obligation to engage with them further. Over and out. | |
| Jun 25 at 17:09 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @JimBalter: as I said, the category 'male' has distinct inclusion/exclusion criteria. That's what makes it a category. There are no such criteria for 'thing'. And yes, 'he' is a context-dependent pointer to a particular member of the category 'male', just like 'thing' is a context-dependent universal pointer. | |
| Jun 25 at 5:39 | comment | added | Jim Balter | "thing" is like "male" and (very) unlike "he". There is a set of males and a set of things--the latter purportedly being the broadest set--it contains everything (aka every thing). "he' is a pointer to a particular member", no, quite the opposite--it's completely context-dependent. | |
| Jun 22 at 20:05 | history | answered | Ted Wrigley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |