Problem of Universals

[Rival]

Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Problem of Universals: Nominalism vs. Realism | Highbrow

The Problem of Universals posits two theories about the nature of reality: nominalism and realism, that oppose each other and argue the question of whether “universal” things are in fact “real.”

gohighbrow.com

 

[dybmh]

Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

Problem of Universals: Nominalism vs. Realism | Highbrow

The Problem of Universals posits two theories about the nature of reality: nominalism and realism, that oppose each other and argue the question of whether “universal” things are in fact “real.”

gohighbrow.com

I'm struggling with the defintions. ~confused~

 

[Quintessence]

I don't really think of myself as either. I've simply held the conviction for a very long time that it's dumb to call anything one can experience and know "not real" or somehow "less real." Which probably puts me in the real is real realism camp I guess?

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't know.

I don't know if any of it is real.

 

[Rival]

I'm struggling with the defintions. ~confused~

Difference between Nominalism and Realism | Nominalism vs Realism might help.

If not try Stanford or Wiki.

 

[Quintessence]

On the other hand, I'm not sure realism is where I sit because I do acknowledge that the way in which we experience something - in what fashion it is real to us - does have very real and meaningful distinctions. Really.

 

[Rival]

I don't know.

I don't know if any of it is real.

Would you say any of it exists in God's mind? If so you're more likely to be a realist.

Does the number 2 exist?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't think I can vote.

What am I if I posit that what is physical, observable, and measurable isn't "real?"

 

[JustGeorge]

Would you say any of it exists in God's mind? If so you're more likely to be a realist.

It exists somewhere. I'm unsure as to where, and how concrete this is, or if its mostly illusionary.

Does the number 2 exist?

The number? Well, it exists to people. The quantity exists on a greater level.

 

[Rival]

I don't think I can vote.

What am I if I posit that what is physical, observable, and measurable isn't "real?"

Possibly a fictionalist.

 

[Rival]

It exists somewhere. I'm unsure as to where, and how concrete this is, or if its mostly illusionary.

The number? Well, it exists to people. The quantity exists on a greater level.

But you can't study '2' under a microscope.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Possibly a fictionalist.

Okay. I vote that then.

 

[JustGeorge]

But you can't study '2' under a microscope.

No. You can identify that there's two of something under it, though.

 

[Rival]

No. You can identify that there's two of something under it, though.

Yes, so what is '2'?

According to a realist '2' is a concept we discover.

According a nominalist we made up '2' to describe a concept, but '2' itself isn't actually real (either in God's mind or Plato's Realm of Forms or anywhere else).

 

[Debater Slayer]

I believe abstract concepts are as real as measurable, physical phenomena insomuch as the mechanisms and faculties by which they are produced are common among humans. The brain chemistry and biology that underpin human emotions, thoughts, and creative processes are found among our species as a feature of our shared biological constitution.

However, many abstract concepts are much less intersubjectively verifiable than measurable, physical phenomena. I don't think this makes them less real, but it makes many of them subjective, personal, and individually variable rather than universally observable and measurable.

 

[JustGeorge]

Yes, so what is '2'?

According to a realist '2' is a concept we discover.

According a nominalist we made up '2' to describe a concept, but '2' itself isn't actually real (either in God's mind or Plato's Realm of Forms or anywhere else).

Interesting!

I'm honestly not sure which I fall into.

I know that I don't know much.

 

[Rival]

Interesting!

I'm honestly not sure which I fall into.

I know that I don't know much.

If somone shoots someone for no reason, do you believe the perpetrator ought to face justice?

Why? Justice is a concept, not something we can test scientifically.

You could say society has invented the concept of justice, but that still means that justice isn't strictly 'real', just a useful fiction.

 

[JustGeorge]

If somone shoots someone for no reason, do you believe the perpetrator ought to face justice?

For the sake of order, something oughta be done. Justice? What is that? I don't know, maybe it will make someone feel good if the person sits in a cell somewhere so they can think about what they've done, but I'd rather get to the bottom of why they did it, and then go from there.

Why? Justice is a concept, not something we can test scientifically.

I feel justice is made up, unreal other than in the heads of the people who have made it up, or agree upon its existence.

But, as some others have pointed out, just because it only exists in someone's mind, does that mean its unreal?

You could say society has invented the concept of justice, but that still means that justice isn't strictly 'real', just a useful fiction.

Useful fiction. I like that. I could agree its useful fiction.

 

[Onasander]

 

[Onasander]

I should point out my position isn't on that matrix. I posted it so some of you can find positions expanded beyond what was available in the OP.