Talk:Instantiation principle

Horribly Wrong

This article was 100% wrong. I don't have the time to make it nice, but at least it's not wrong anymore.

Reference at the bottom

I believe the reference to Heit may perhaps refer to a different Instantiation principle?

Brokenplates\ (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge and then redirect?

Sorry I didn't speak up sooner. I believe there is information on this page that is unique and distinct from that information at Abstraction. If we redirect this article to Abstraction, we lose this information. I would be in favor, however, of moving the information to Abstraction before we redirect.

I realize I'm somewhat biased here, since I originally created the article, but this idea, while probably too obscure for most readers of Wikipedia, turns out to be (in my opinion) an essential link between Medieval and Modern philosophy, between Francisco Suarez's theory of distinctions (which includes essence/property) and Rene Descartes's "I think, therefore I am".

Again, I'm in favor of moving the information to Abstraction, if it fits better there. But let's move the text first before we redirect!

(I might end up moving the text there myself, by the way.. eventually)

FranksValli 07:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking...

Descartes' statement is so widely known as "I think, therefore I am," that "I am thinking" sounds either Martian or as if written by someone whose native language isn't English. Let's change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.137.5 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Realties" or "realities"?

Have tidied the page, but not an expert in this field. The "in realties" statement appears odd, so (having searched and only come up with an irrelevant Lyotard reference) I have added a Citation Needed tag. Te Karere (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)