Prev: Types and tokens
Next: Is the (argument from inconsistent revelations) a real logical fallacy?
From: Immortalist on 15 May 2010 20:23
In philosophy, nominalism is the theory that abstract terms, general
terms, or universals do not represent objective real existents, but
are merely names, words, or vocal utterances (flatus vocis). In this
view, it is only actual physical particulars that can be said to be
real and universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to
particular things. (Feibleman 1962).

Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
realism holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or
"tree," the Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of the
world in an abstract realm. Such thought is associated with Plato, for
instance. Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas represented by
words have no real existence beyond our imaginations...

....general or abstract terms and predicates exist, while universals or
abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to these
terms, do not exist. Thus, there are at least two main versions of
nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals-things that
can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g.
strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the
existence of abstract objects-objects that do not exist in space and
time.

http://nominalism.structurization.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/universa/
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 22:53
On May 16, 8:23 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> In philosophy, nominalism is the theory that abstract terms, general
> terms, or universals do not represent objective real existents, but
> are merely names, words, or vocal utterances (flatus vocis). In this
> view, it is only actual physical particulars that can be said to be
> real and universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to
> particular things. (Feibleman 1962).
>
> Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
> realism holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or
> "tree," the Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of the
> world in an abstract realm. Such thought is associated with Plato, for
> instance. Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas represented by
> words have no real existence beyond our imaginations...

Do you not agree that this comparison is identical to the comparison
of modern vs quantum physics?

Both accurate,but from parallel perspectives (universes).

Turning a tree into a table involves the modern(physics)equivalent of
physical modification.

The initiation of such activity started in the quantum realm of the
imagination.(The image comes first and remains even if the physical
manipulation doesnt follow). The image of the tree changed into the
image of the table, still complying with both 'realities'. Example
being the image of the tree still exists regardless of the new form.
>
> ...general or abstract terms and predicates exist, while universals or
> abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to these
> terms, do not exist.  Thus, there are at least two main versions of
> nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals-things that
> can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g.
> strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the
> existence of abstract objects-objects that do not exist in space and
> time.

As I said, parallel realities.

BOfL
>
> http://nominalism.structurization.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalismhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/universa/

From: Giga2 on 16 May 2010 03:10
On 16 May, 01:23, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> In philosophy, nominalism is the theory that abstract terms, general
> terms, or universals do not represent objective real existents, but
> are merely names, words, or vocal utterances (flatus vocis). In this
> view, it is only actual physical particulars that can be said to be
> real and universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to
> particular things. (Feibleman 1962).
>
> Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
> realism holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or
> "tree," the Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of the
> world in an abstract realm. Such thought is associated with Plato, for
> instance. Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas represented by
> words have no real existence beyond our imaginations...
>
> ...general or abstract terms and predicates exist, while universals or
> abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to these
> terms, do not exist.  Thus, there are at least two main versions of
> nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals-things that
> can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g.
> strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the
> existence of abstract objects-objects that do not exist in space and
> time.
>
> http://nominalism.structurization.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalismhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/universa/

I must admit I have never been able to understand how anyone could
believe that the idea 'triangle' or 'electrify' tangibly exist in some
other dimension or higher reality?? It really seems to be an odd idea.
One without any motivation, that I can fathom, any proof, or probably
any possible way to prove or falsify it. I would say universals are
purely mind-dependent, and they are slightly different concepts in
each mind in fact (so they are not even really universals at all).
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Types and tokens
Next: Is the (argument from inconsistent revelations) a real logical fallacy?