From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 22:50:44 MST
"Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> Wrote:
>Did India embrace socialism? I haven't heard much that indicates
>this is so.
It's written in black and white in the preamble to its constitution, it says
"India is a sovereign, secular, socialist republic". They also have
something called the "Representation of Peoples Act" and it requires all
political parties swear by this preamble. Few countries on Earth regulate
their economy more tightly, or have more red tape.
>I don't think that anyone considers communism to be a from of
>socialism.
Oh I think quite a number of people would consider it such.
> I am looking for a definition, and that will by necessity be a bit
>abstract, and not attached to particular instances.
Why? A definition, any definition, will be made of words that have
their own definitions also made of words with yet more definitions.
The only thing that prevents endless circularity is if at some point
you can say one of those words and point to a particular instance
in the real world.
>If you define something by pointing at it, you have defined not
>appleness, but one particular apple.
Nonsense, if that were true I wouldn't be able to recognize an apple the
next time I saw one, but somehow I have that skill and I don't recall ever
looking up the word "apple" in a dictionary to see what other words that
book associated with it.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:58 MST