I was reading about the Nyaya school today and thought of this thread. They were an Indian group focused primarily on logic. Questions of reality and choices were put to the peripheral for them. Like modern formalism, they valued thought in itself and not particularly on how it relates to reality, whatever reality is lol. The Mimamsa school said language was primary and talked of language's intricacies without specifically caring, it seems, what it said about reality. Again, whatever that is

All nominalistic philosophies, to my mind, all lead to absolute skepticism, nihilism and basically Postmodernism.

So I share this sentiment, that formalism is "not that interesting" philosophically. Except that I apply that to nominalism in toto.

It's interesting how old nominalism is. It's seems to me to be common sense. Ideas of natures and objects having accidents coming out of substances are adult fantasies to my mind

It's only 700 years old. "Platonism" is as old as humans have been walking the Earth.

And I'm not arguing for Aristotle's metaphysics. I dont accept that.

As for "adult fantasies" the whole nominalist worldview would logically entail that all of reality is a fantasy. There are no actual qualities or properties things actually share, so they don't have properties or qualities. Which means everything you have ever seen heard or experienced is a mental illusion created by your brain. Nothing is real. If you think that makes sense, go for it.

"Platonism" is as old as humans have been walking the Earth. — Dharmi

How do you know that?

whole nominalist worldview would logically entail that all of reality is a fantasy. — Dharmi

No it doesn't. It just says that a tree and another tree don't share some quasi non-material nature in common. Its just a bunch of matter. And matter is real. Qualities might be outside or inside the mind, but even Kant realized we have to posit SOMETHING out there, because otherwise we have solipsism. Solipsism is absurd, so there world is not fantasy. This is clearly true (platonism is not)

Soul emerges from matter. Belief in matter is essential and the only people who in their souls' don't believe in matter are people that have had psychology trauma or some kind. This at least is what makes perfect sense to me

How do you know that? — Gregory

Because we have historiographical studies of ancient societies, and as far as we can tell, the vast majority of human societies held to a form of Idealistic Panentheism. Mesoamerican socities, ancient European, Vedic, East Asian. Several.

No it doesn't. It just says that a tree and another tree don't share some quasi non-material nature in common. Its just a bunch of matter. And matter is real. Qualities might be outside or inside the mind, but even Kant realized we have to posit SOMETHING out there, because otherwise we have solipsism. Solipsism is absurd, so there world is not fantasy. This is clearly true (platonism is not)

It does totally. That's why Max Stirner, Nietzsche, Existentialists, Postmodernists and nihilists are honest and consistent nominalists.

EXACTLY. They share no properties in common. "Just matter" no dude, "matter" is a property. They don't share that property. You just said they share no inherent natural properties. Matter is property. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're proving my point.

Matter is a quality of experience, you can't prove it is real. And quantum physicists can't even describe the mass, charge, spin, location, weight etc. of "matter" which is no different than it not really being there.

No, empirico-materialism leads to solipsism. According to Kant, and according to you, all that exists is reducible to sense perceptions (without anything linking them together due to Hume's problem of induction) and chemical combinations in the brain creating the illusion of "reality."

Your worldview leads to solipsism, my worldview says the world exists actually and truly. There are properties, natures, qualities, essences, natures that things truly actually have.

Because we have historiographical studies of ancient societies, and as far as we can tell, the vast majority of human societies held to a form of Idealistic Panentheism. Mesoamerican socities, ancient European, Vedic, East Asian. — Dharmi

That doesn't tell us what THEIR ancestors believed. Humanity is between 200, 000 and 300,000 years old

That doesn't tell us what THEIR ancestors believed. Humanity is between 200, 000 and 300,000 years old — Gregory

That's also false. Modern science says humanity is 350,000 years old. More than that, you're just assuming modern science is true. Which is just an assertion. I would claim it's much older. Anyway, this is a derail.

I don't need to prove my position is the oldest to prove your position is only 700 years old with no antecedent.

That's why Max Stirner, Nietzsche, Existentialists, Postmodernists and nihilists are honest and consistent nominalists.

EXACTLY. They share no properties in common. "Just matter" no dude, "matter" is a property. They don't share that property. You just said they share no inherent natural properties. Matter is property. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're proving my point.

Matter is a quality of experience, you can't prove it is real. And quantum physicists can't even describe the mass, charge, spin, location, weight etc. of "matter" which is no different than it not really being there.

No, empirico-materialism leads to solipsism. According to Kant, and according to you, all that exists is reducible to sense perceptions (without anything linking them together due to Hume's problem of induction) and chemical combinations in the brain creating the illusion of "reality."

Your worldview leads to solipsism, my worldview says the world exists actually and truly. There are properties, natures, qualities, essences, natures that things truly actually have. — Dharmi

Matter is not a property, it is a substance. You are made of matter. It doesn't matter is messed up people also believe in nominalism. A healthy person can believe in it to. Are all Platonists perfect?

I would claim it's much older. — Dharmi

If it's much older, prove they believe in Platonism? Matter is entirely provable. Punch yourself in the arm or pick up a chair

Matter is not a property, it is a substance. You are made of matter. It doesn't matter is messed up people also believe in nominalism. A healthy person can believe in it to. Are all Platonists perfect? — Gregory

Substances, natures, essences are universals. How can you not understand that?

Platonism, at least in it's classical formulation, I actually reject. I hold to the formulation that the Vedanta schools hold to.

Anyway, this is a derail. — Dharmi

Formalism is denying that talking about matter in ontological terms is legit, so maybe speaking of nominalism might be a derail even though it runs counter to Platonism

If it's much older, prove they believe in Platonism? Matter is entirely provable. Punch yourself in the arm or pick up a chair — Gregory

No, matter is not provable. Qualities of experience are all that has ever been proved. You've decided ad hoc to call these qualities of experience "matter"

Substances, natures, essences are universals. — Dharmi

Thought of in Platonism or Hegelism terms, sure. Not in Kantian or empiricist terms though

Formalism is denying that talking about matter in ontological terms is legit, so maybe speaking of nominalism might be a derail even though it runs counter to Platonism — Gregory

Speaking of nominalist philosophy isn't a derail, trying to talk about the history of it is a derail. Those different issues.

No, matter is not provable. Qualities of experience are all that has ever been proved. You've decided ad hoc to call these qualities of experience "matter" — Dharmi

That's absurd to the highest degree. You are denying you are a body then

Thought of in Platonism or Hegelism terms, sure. Not in Kantian or empiricist terms though — Gregory

Because those philosophies are inconsistent. "There are natures but there are not." Pure sophistry.

That's absurd to the higher degree. You are denying you are a body then — Gregory

Correct. I am a spirit soul which has a body. A body is like an avatar in a video game.

Because those philosophies are inconsistent. "There are natures but there are not." Pure sophistry. — Dharmi

There are not universals, but there are material natures. The latter are defined by the matter we experience

There are not universals, but there are material natures. The latter are defined by the matter we experience — Gregory

But we've never experienced natures or matter. And a nature is a universal. Every metaphysician knows that.

A body is like an avatar in a video game. — Dharmi

That's mental illness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorder

No, it's the worldview that I have. Believing that everything in your mind is a chemical illusion is mental illness.

But we've never experiences natures. And a nature is a universal. Every metaphysician knows that. — Dharmi

There is no consensus in philosophy. We experience matter and classify them according to their natures. Universals are spooks of metaphysicians

There is no consensus in philosophy. We experience matter and classify them according to their natures. Universals are spooks of metaphysicians — Gregory

Everything you say is a spook. Is it universally true there are no universals?

No, it's the worldview that I have. Believing that everything in your mind is a chemical illusion is mental illness. — Dharmi

Well I disagree. I had a great childhood and thus do not deny matter. I've experienced some trauma but it hasn't shaken my belief in matter. People get traumatized by life and deny matter. It's insane to do so though. There are universal truths, but no universals as substances. Truth is not a substance

It's a belief. I'm glad you admit it. There's absolutely no such thing as matter outside of your ad hoc belief. It's a religion. Great.

There are no universal truths if you deny universals. You are playing a sophistic game of wanting to have your cake and eat, which is what all Modernist philosophers do. Postmoderns are honest. "No universals, no universal truth." Let's be honest with our worldviews.

There are no universal truths if you deny universals. — Dharmi

No, this is based on your belief in the substance of truth (Platonism)

Anything can be called a belief because 100 certainty in something all the time is a spook

How would you defend yourself in a fist fight while denying matter is real I would like to know