<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>《实在与经验》的评论</title>
	<atom:link href="https://headsalon.org/archives/1835.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://headsalon.org/archives/1835.html</link>
	<description>A Salon for Heads, No Sofa for Ass</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 05:27:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>作者：Default</title>
		<link>https://headsalon.org/archives/1835.html#comment-2070</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Default]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 14:13:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://headsalon.org/?p=1835#comment-2070</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[呵呵，辉大师在这点上的看法和我一样。realism Vs. nominalism这样的划分我总觉得不满意；而nominalism按其某些定义我也觉得不符合我的想法，但有时又觉得我的想法就是nominalism。主要原因大概是这些ism都没有准确的定义吧。

如果硬要使用这类术语体系，我觉得辉总谈到的“本质主义”可称为Dennett讽刺的hysterical realism，而&quot;概念论&quot;可称为Dennett自嘲的superficialism.（http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/getreal.htm#Superficialism）

引用下Dennett此文的一段话吧: &quot;The defense of what Richard Rorty mockingly calls &quot;Our Realist Intuitions&quot; is a fervent activity in many quarters, and while I am not hereby endorsing Rorty&#039;s brand of resistance, I do think he has touched one of the untouchable sore spots in contemporary philosophy. Hysterical realism deserves its name, I will argue, because it is an overreaction, a rationally unmotivatable spasm brought on by peering into the abyss of certain indeterminacies that really should not trouble anybody so much. &quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>呵呵，辉大师在这点上的看法和我一样。realism Vs. nominalism这样的划分我总觉得不满意；而nominalism按其某些定义我也觉得不符合我的想法，但有时又觉得我的想法就是nominalism。主要原因大概是这些ism都没有准确的定义吧。</p>
<p>如果硬要使用这类术语体系，我觉得辉总谈到的“本质主义”可称为Dennett讽刺的hysterical realism，而&#8221;概念论&#8221;可称为Dennett自嘲的superficialism.（http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/getreal.htm#Superficialism）</p>
<p>引用下Dennett此文的一段话吧: &#8220;The defense of what Richard Rorty mockingly calls &#8220;Our Realist Intuitions&#8221; is a fervent activity in many quarters, and while I am not hereby endorsing Rorty&#8217;s brand of resistance, I do think he has touched one of the untouchable sore spots in contemporary philosophy. Hysterical realism deserves its name, I will argue, because it is an overreaction, a rationally unmotivatable spasm brought on by peering into the abyss of certain indeterminacies that really should not trouble anybody so much. &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>作者：辉格</title>
		<link>https://headsalon.org/archives/1835.html#comment-2028</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[辉格]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 10:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://headsalon.org/?p=1835#comment-2028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[按某些用法，似乎是一样的，不过我没有细究哲学界对这些概念的各种用法，我满足于把自己的意思说清楚就可以了。

我不喜欢唯名论这个词，因为按以前的印象，它和我的想法很不一样，但如果按波普的用法，我说的概念论就是唯名论。]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>按某些用法，似乎是一样的，不过我没有细究哲学界对这些概念的各种用法，我满足于把自己的意思说清楚就可以了。</p>
<p>我不喜欢唯名论这个词，因为按以前的印象，它和我的想法很不一样，但如果按波普的用法，我说的概念论就是唯名论。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>作者：猞猁雪球</title>
		<link>https://headsalon.org/archives/1835.html#comment-2027</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[猞猁雪球]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 10:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://headsalon.org/?p=1835#comment-2027</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“本质主义/概念论”跟“实在论/唯名论”是一回事吗？]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“本质主义/概念论”跟“实在论/唯名论”是一回事吗？</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
