CathyI think what the challenge is here is in trying to converse more generally in a forum very saturated with nominalists who only want to converse in particulars. — Mapping the Medium
I'm sorry you have been getting the "religious nut" treatment on the forum. — Gnomon
I think you are correct about the predominance of Nominalists, who may also be Materialists and Atomists. But in order to converse with them, you will need to try to speak their language, which may not include much Piercean metaphysics. — Gnomon
It's OK to link to "expert" definitions as an extension of your personal opinions. But your key point must be made in the current post. — Gnomon
serious scientists are coming to the conclusion that mundane Information is universal — Gnomon
taking into consideration the chaos of the constituents, the whole system (Gaia?) might be half-crazy — Gnomon
I'm sorry you have been getting the "religious nut" treatment on the forum. I think you are correct about the predominance of Nominalists, who may also be Materialists and Atomists. But in order to converse with them, you will need to try to speak their language, — Gnomon
My taste is for keeping open house for all sorts of conditions of entities, just so long as when they come in they help with the housework. Provided that I can see them work, and provided that they are not detected in illicit logical behaviour (within which I do not include a certain degree of indeterminacy, not even of numerical indeterminacy), I do not find them queer or mysterious at all…. To fangle a new ontological Marxism, they work therefore they exist, even though only some, perhaps those who come on the recommendation of some form of transcendental argument, may qualify for the specially favoured status of entia realissima. To exclude honest working entities seems to me like metaphysical snobbery, a reluctance to be seen in the company of any but the best objects. — Paul Grice
right down to the note of pragmatism — Srap Tasmaner
is almost religiously devoted to him. — SophistiCat
moderate and critical interest — SophistiCat
That's so ironic.... That's precisely how I feel about nominalists. — Mapping the Medium
You don't seem to use it in its usual meaning, but more like "motherfucker." — SophistiCat
The founders of modern materialistic Science deliberately limited their investigations to Specific and Reductive elements of reality. In doing so, they abandoned Universals and Wholes to "feckless" philosophers, who deign to dabble in Metaphysics (First Philosophy). From the nominalist perspective, the human Mind is just a name for brain-work. And that's OK, if you are studying Physiology, but not if you study Psychology or Ontology.Just curious, what does "nominalist" even mean to you? You don't seem to use it in its usual meaning, but more like "CENSORED." — SophistiCat
As someone with nominalist inclinations, I still find this charming, right down to the note of pragmatism: — Srap Tasmaner
2.abstract theory with no basis in reality. — Gnomon
As someone with nominalist inclinations, I still find this charming, right down to the note of pragmatism: — Srap Tasmaner
For Peirce, there is a very big difference between what exists and what is real. — Mapping the Medium
Can you elaborate? I'm not very familiar with Pierce's writing. What little I've tried to read is way over my head. But I too, make a distinction between "what exists" and "what is physically real". For example, mental Abstractions are a prominent component of human experience, even though they have no physical instances. In what sense do they exist? :smile:For Peirce, there is a very big difference between what exists and what is real. — Mapping the Medium
Can you elaborate? — Gnomon
In what sense do they exist? :smile: — Gnomon
mental Abstractions are a prominent component of human experience — Gnomon
I'm reading from a book called Pierce and the Threat of Nominalism. — Wayfarer
thanks. — Wayfarer
Sorry to interrupt your exit. Maybe, like a stage performer, you can take a second and third bow. :joke:Not fair, Gnomon. ;-) You know I am trying to bow out. — Mapping the Medium
OK. I'll bite. In what sense are mental Abstractions "real", as opposed to "existent"? I suppose that Pierce intended to reconcile Realism & Idealism in his philosophy. But his explications are so complex and technical, that I get lost in a labyrinth of enigmas. Maybe you can 'splain it to me.Don't you actually mean "In what sense are they real? — Mapping the Medium
Absolutely, and I want to say your use of "shiny" is not coincidental. — Srap Tasmaner
That's a demonstration of something, but not of something anyone really needs. Back to the rough ground, and to tools that will improve with use on rough ground, and that means no glass-soled boots. — Srap Tasmaner
Maybe, like a stage performer, you can take a second and third bow. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.