• Terrapin Station
    6k


    If you don't know what I'm referring to then you don't really understand the distinction between particulars and universals or abstracts.

    A particular is a single thing, in a specific spatio-temporal location, and it's only that thing.

    The idea of a universal is that it's something that can be instantiated in more than one thing.

    So for example, many individuals can be a cat, but a particular cat would be "that one, sitting on the living room windowsill of 33 Main Street, Des Moines, Iowa, named 'Fluffy,' who likes grapefruit juice."
  • chatterbears
    391
    I told you I understand that already. And to frame your particulars/universals in the axiom context, I'll do it this way.

    Universal: An axiom
    Particular: the law of noncontradiction

    This is irrelevant to what I asked though and you didn't answer my question.

    Did you agree with my definition of the law of noncontradiction? And do you agree that it is identical to what you stated?

    law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
    what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

    If you agree that what you stated is conceptually identical to the law of noncontradiction, in the same way that "not having hair" is conceptually identical to "a bare scalp", then you are tripped up on semantics. My initially problem was how you tried to label "something can't be itself and not itself" as an objective fact. When it is not an objective fact, but instead, an axiom.
  • Sir2u
    1.4k
    No [you].S

    No what? Could you please try a little harder to clarify what you mean?
  • Terrapin Station
    6k
    I told you I understand that already. And to frame your particulars/universals in the axiom context, I'll do it this way.

    Universal: An axiom
    Particular: the law of noncontradiction
    chatterbears

    If the law of noncontradiction is a particular, then there's just one instance of it at a specific spatio-temporal location.

    (Or in other words, no, you're not understanding what particulars are. You're thinking that I'm saying something akin to (super)set versus a member of the set. That's not what particulars are.)
  • DingoJones
    403


    I read through all the relevent posts, Im sorry to say it seems like pretty clear dodging questions from the onset. It looks like an attempt to control the framing of the discussion to suit you rather than a real attempt at understanding, and to be honest I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I accept this might be the result of miscommunication but Im comfortable to let what i have said stand.
    You helped me understand I need to expand my points more and lower my unfair expectations of others to puzzle out what I mean, so thanks for that at least.
  • chatterbears
    391
    I don’t understand why you aren’t answering my question. This is the 3rd time now, for this specific question.

    Do you agree that what you described is identical to the law of contradiction?

    law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
    what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

    If you agree that these are identical, then can you concede that your statement is an axiom, not an objective truth.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k


    I am in the process of answering your question (the answer is "No," which I've already explained), but you'll not be able to understand the answer if you don't understand the universals/particulars distinction a la nominalism, and you don't understand that distinction if you're suggesting that a law or principle, objectively, could be a particular. Hence why I'm focusing on this distinction. What I'm saying can't be understood without understanding the universals/particulars or abstracts/particulars distinction.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k


    Okay.

    We can't do anything with that re forwarding a conversation, obviously, so . . .
  • chatterbears
    391
    you don't understand that distinction if you're suggesting that a law or principle, objectively, could be a particular.Terrapin Station
    You said it is not a particular, while I say it is. Do we just end the convo there?
  • NKBJ
    404
    http://www.upc-online.org/phil_veg.html

    Karen Davis is the voice of clarity once again.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k


    If the law of noncontradiction is a particular that means there's just one instance of it, at a specific spatio-temporal location. Do you agree with that?
  • chatterbears
    391
    If the law of noncontradiction is a particular that means there's just one instance of it, at a specific spatio-temporal location. Do you agree with that?Terrapin Station

    No, I don't agree. But seeing as we are going to go around in circles and disagree on how things are defined or used, let's just end the convo here. Small re-cap:

    I stated that logic, math and ethics all have axioms in which one would accept to move forward with further reasoning. You state that logic and math point to objective facts, while ethics does not. You then stated that "something can't be itself and not itself at the same time." is an objective fact, while I tried to correct you and state that this is an axiom called 'the law of noncontradiction'. You claimed it wasn't the same as the law of noncontradiction, while I claim the two are identical, but just worded trivially different. We then go off on a tangent about how this relates to metaphysics (universals/particulars), in which the discussion becomes even less productive than it was initially.

    Side Rebuttal: I could claim that my system of logic has an axiom that states "something CAN be itself and not itself at the same time." - In which I could then claim this is an objective fact, and be in the same position as you are, but on the opposing side.

    In conclusion, you can claim anything to be an objective fact, but that does not make it so.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k
    No, I don't agree.chatterbears

    If you don't agree with that then you don't think that the principle/law of noncontradiction is a particular.

    I don't want to move on to other stuff (and I especially don't want you to fall back on what's essentially a script for you) until you understand the distinction between particulars and universals or abstracts, because you're not going to understand what I'm saying until you understand that distinction. For example, "You state that logic and math point to objective facts"--I expressly did NOT say that. I said something far more nuanced than that, but you're not going to be able to understand what I said if you don't have a handle on what particulars versus abstracts or universals amounts to.
  • chatterbears
    391
    No worries. Let's just move on and chalk up this discussion as a miscommunication.
  • Mattiesse
    20
    It is true that a lot of humans see other species as beneath them. Isn’t it weird that when we go to the butchers, they say fresh ham...not slaughted pig. Beef...not dead cow. Lamb is still called lamb and more than half of us forget it was a baby sheep, and chicken is still called chicken!
    YES we are omnivores...but we mainly lean towards vegetarian due to our digestive track, teeth and lack of claws. I personally do eat meat time to time, but what bothers me more is the manner these animals are treated and than “humanely” *cough* killed. So if that’s the case...why can we also eat meat? It’s to do with a time Neanderthals and Homo sapiens co-existed. A time of little to no vegetation lead Homo sapiens to kill animals for food. But the Neanderthals couldn’t catch up. They starved. (Apparently)
  • NKBJ
    404
    Yes. Because we should be living in peace wuth the rest of the world. Especially other sentient beings.

    https://youtu.be/ZUsiY8FxoWs
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment