Status Updates From The Logical Structure of th...

His construction of a thing works only with a moving background, because he portrays the thing as proximal relations that persist in time, so a thing could not be distinguished against a non-moving background: yet moving itself requires things. What's more, it does not accomplish the construction of the chair I see as a distinct thing from the non-moving wall behind it.

Basic relation and part similarity are defined tautologically here: the trouble must be with trying to treat relation as fundamental, in an anti-substantialist move

what the fuck am I reading

Flaws so far: extensionality thesis fails and he makes an invalid point at a crucial juncture, claiming that x is a rational animal is co-extensive with x is a man, enabling the inference that rational animals are mortal. But there's nothing in the concept of rational animal that contradicts immortality and thus rational animal is not co-extensive with man, but has a larger extension, based on its sense.

reading this because of the "structural objectivity" chapter(s) in Lorraine Daston's Objectivity (also I want to become a traffic planner nowadays)