Uniques (was: RE: RE: fundamentalism as fundamental

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 08:01:13PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > I'll retract my statement about "lo'ei" being
> > > poorly defined---it's certainly better defined than And's Unique
> > > stuff at least, 
> > 
> > Which definition did you find poorly done, and which particular
> > elements of the definition did you have trouble with?
> 
> The definition for Unique makes sense, but it's not a very precise
> way of looking at things. Under the way you define it, the exact
> properties of the Unique-thing are completely up to the speaker---basically
> anything can be predicated of it 
> 
> So the problem wouldn't be the definition, so much as the meaning 

Surely not everything can be predicated of uniques -- of Jordan,
of oxygen, of London, of homo sapiens, of magenta, of Tuesday, etc.
It seems to me that the properties of these are not completely up
to the speaker, and that we don't have a problem with their meaning.

--And.