A Refutation of Nominalism:

TheGreatArcanum

I'm a nominalist, by the way — Terrapin Station

nothing is identical through time. — Terrapin Station

Of course, one can doubt that unchange exists and presuppose that all is changing all the time, but then the phrases ‘nothing is unchanging’ and ‘all is changing’ become subjected to their own presuppositions.

The statements ‘nothing is unchanging’ and ‘all is changing’ either change over time or they do not change over time, and there is no middle ground. If the phrases ‘nothing is unchanging’ and ‘all is changing’ are remain unchanging from one moment to the next in time so long as they exist, a contradiction in terms ensues; and if they change from moment to moment in time, well what do those phrases then become? If you cannot say what exactly they become or can potentially become, then how can you say that are changing? What can the set of words and concepts (i.e. phrases) ‘nothing is unchanging’ or ‘all is changing’ possibly become from one moment to the next in time without their meanings being changed and therefore lost in time?

There exist only three possibilities here:

1. Either the phrases themselves remain unchanged and the abstract meanings to which those phrases point remains unchanged, in which case, a contradiction ensues.

2. The phrases change and the meaning to which those phrases point changes, in which case, the phases have lost their original meaning altogether and language is altogether senseless and therefore without value.

3. Or the phrases change and the meaning to which those phrases point remains unchanged, in which case a contradiction ensues.

To be a nominalist it seems that one must either contradict oneself and be OK with it, or they must concede that number 2 is true, and the language in which they use to support their own position is without meaning and therefore without value, in which case, another contradiction ensues, because in speaking on behalf of their position, they assign meaning and value to the words in which they are speaking while at the same time asserting that those words are meaningless.

Terrapin Station

but then the phrases ‘nothing is unchanging’ and ‘all is changing’ become predisposed to that their own presuppositions. — TheGreatArcanum

Before you post something, read it out loud. Does that sentence make sense to you when you read it out loud?

TheGreatArcanum

Before you post something, read it out loud. Does that sentence make sense to you when you read it out loud? — Terrapin Station

unchange = not not change....nothing is unchanging = all is changing

Terrapin Station

↪TheGreatArcanum

"Predisposed to that their own presuppositions"?

TheGreatArcanum

"Predisposed to that their own"? — Terrapin Station

Yes, for example, the phrase 'nothing is unchanging' presupposes that nothing is unchanging without providing a logical proof that this is true. the phrase 'nothing is unchanging' exists as an abstract object of memory and imagination, it does not, 'not exist' in the absolute sense of the word; so the phrase 'nothing is unchanging' is subject to, or "predisposed" to, its own claim.

Terrapin Station

↪TheGreatArcanum

Is English your first language?

TheGreatArcanum

Is English your first language? — Terrapin Station

there's nothing wrong with the sentence. are you going to nitpick about the first sentence or refute my refutation. If you cannot support your own position, you should stop believing it to be true. I suggest that you don't, as others do, root your philosophy in the false presupposition that all is a subset of nothingness, and then pick and choose which sub-categories of philosophy fall under that presupposition.

Terrapin Station

↪TheGreatArcanum

It makes no sense in conventional English. "<Past participle> to that their own" makes no sense in conventional English.

TheGreatArcanum

It makes no sense in conventional English. "<Past participle> to that their own" makes no sense in conventional English. — Terrapin Station

good thing logic isn't bound by the English language.

Terrapin Station

good thing logic isn't bound by the English language. — TheGreatArcanum

Could you give a reference for anything like "<past participle> to that their own" occurring in logic?

Terrapin Station

Your responses to this do not bode well for you wanting an editor, by the way. You won't even fix something simple that makes no sense as conventional English.

TheGreatArcanum

Your responses to this do not bode well for you wanting an editor, by the way. You won't even fix something simple that makes no sense as conventional English. — Terrapin Station

There, its fixed, can we move on now, look how much time you've wasted unnecessarily, clearly, the word "that" wasn't supposed to be there.

Terrapin Station

if they change from moment to moment in time, well what do those phrases then become? — TheGreatArcanum

Okay, so moving on, we already answered this. They are non-identical instances of the phrases.

Maybe it's not clear what you're asking, though. What sorts of answers would you accept to other "what do they become" questions?

TheGreatArcanum

Okay, so moving on, we already answered this. They are non-identical instances of the phrases.

Maybe it's not clear what you're asking, though. What sorts of answers would you accept to other "what do they become" questions? — Terrapin Station

see hypotheticals 1, 2, and 3.

Terrapin Station

the phases have lost their original meaning altogether and language is altogether senseless and therefore without value. — TheGreatArcanum

Re this, let's clarify how you're using "senseless" there. Is it basically just a value statement?

TheGreatArcanum

Re this, let's clarify how you're using "senseless" there. Is it basically just a value statement? — Terrapin Station

senseless and meaningless are synonyms. it means that the words and concepts associated with the phrases do not point to an unchanging meaning, but a changing meaning, meaning that the words themselves are meaningless.

Terrapin Station

↪TheGreatArcanum

How would we arrive at the idea that in order for meaning to be meaning, it can't change. It it's changing meaning, it's not meaning at all?

Terrapin Station

Again, I'm pretty sure that you're not even familiar with nominalism.

Note that what nominalists are saying is that this:

A

and this:

A

are not actually identical.

What they're not saying, and I think you're thinking that they are saying this, is that we get something like this:

A

changing to something like this:

B

They're not saying that.

They're saying it's:

A

and

A

But that those aren't actually identical.

TheGreatArcanum

How would we arrive at the idea that in order for meaning to be meaning, it can't change. It it's changing meaning, it's not meaning at all? — Terrapin Station

you can change the words around and substitute japanese for english, for example, by if the original state is to retain its truth value, the meaning in which those words point must be identical in both cases.

Again, I'm pretty sure that you're not even familiar with nominalism.

Note that what nominalists are saying is that this:

A

and this:

A

are not actually identical.

What they're not saying, and I think you're thinking that they are saying this, is that we get something like this:

A

changing to something like this:

B

They're not saying that.

They're saying it's:

A

and

A

But that those aren't actually identical. — Terrapin Station

I'm saying that A in itself doesn't point to anything, it is a variable which points to some tangible thing or some abstract concept, and that if you are to introduce another variable A, it must point to the same thing or concept that the original A points to, otherwise you must use a different variable such as A2, or B, etc... A is identical to A if A points to the same thing or concept in both cases, but A is not identical to A2 or to B if they point to different things or concepts which are not themselves identical with each other. A can change, and B, or C can be used to point to the same original thing or concept that A originally pointed to and there is no problem, but when you change the one A and not the other which still points to the original thing or concept, then they are no longer identical.

Terrapin Station

by if the original state is to retain its truth value, — TheGreatArcanum

"But if the original statement" maybe? Again, could you read this stuff out loud and fix typos prior to posting it?

Truth value is a judgment that an individual makes on each instance, by the way. They do that in conjunction with their meaning assignments on that instance.

TheGreatArcanum

Truth value is a judgment that an individual makes on each instance, by the way. They do that in conjunction with their meaning assignments on that instance. — Terrapin Station

yet still, the truthiness of the statement is true whether or not the individual makes the judgment of its truthiness or not, so the truthiness of the statement precedes man's discernment of it, in terms of real world truths, this is what we're talking about in the post. You keep trying to turn the conversation down some twisted road that leads to nowhere, for what? to see who has a better grasp on the philosophy of language? We cannot get anywhere because you keep reverting back to your own conception of things, a conception which I've shown to be contradictory.

Shawn

More chimp-pig content, please.

TheGreatArcanum

More chimp-pig content, please. — Wallows

am I the chimp or the pig?

Shawn

↪TheGreatArcanum

Since you asked, go ahead and pick one. I'd go with the pig. Oink oink. :_)

TheGreatArcanum

Since you asked, go ahead and pick one. I'd go with the pig. Oink oink. :_) — Wallows

considering the fact that the argument was over with the OP, and everything that happened after that was unnecessary and primitive, I'll go with neither.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪TheGreatArcanum

You missed option 4:

There is an underlying catergory error taking that a change in the world involves a change in meanings or abstracted ideas.

In this instance, the nominalist has a position which obtains: all events of time are change (moments of existence), while every meaning is its own and the same regardless of point in time ( which is, in turn, how change is coherently defined, since being a change, every moment must stand as it own unique meanging ).

TheGreatArcanum

You missed option 4:

There is an underlying catergory error taking that a change in the world involves a change in meanings or abstracted ideas.

In this instance, the nominalist has a position which obtains: all events of time are change (moments of existence), while every meaning is it's own and the same regardless of point in time ( which is, in turn, how change is coherently defined, since being a change, every moment must stand as it own unique meanging ). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't see a need for an option 4, and its very difficult for me to understand what you saying here; it's not exactly worded coherently. the position of the nominalist is that "nothing remains unchanged," correct? Or is this statement not representative of the nominalists view on things? Are you saying that because we can assign a new t-value for each moment of being that, since meaning is in time, presumably, meaning (t1) must be different from meaning (t2); how do you know that meaning is in time, that is, time as it is relative to the senses?

creativesoul

Willow makes a relevant point.

Ask the nominalist to account for shared meaning. Shared meaning is required for language use, particularly for picking out an individual/entity to the exclusion of all others.

creativesoul

If the nominalist is coherent/consistent, then s/he cannot even talk about this sentence for it would have changed and would be another one as a result of change(similar to Heraclitus' river). We wouldn't be able to name things fast enough to talk about them.

But we do.

Some change is allowed without changing the identity of the thing in question.

Terrapin Station

yet still, the truthiness of the statement is true whether or not the individual makes the judgment of its truthiness or not, — TheGreatArcanum

No, it isn't. Truth is a judgment that an individual makes about the relation of a proposition to other things.

Terrapin Station

Shared meaning is required for language use, — creativesoul

No, it isn't.

A Refutation of Nominalism:

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions