Not quite sure what you mean, but it sounds comedic. :lol:

I wouldn't say that we observe things, examine things, etc. without performing both type/universal and genidentity (persistence through time) abstractions. Could we forego those abstractions? It would probably be possible for some people, but it would take a lot of practice to get used to it, and most would feel there's little benefit to it. We naturally think in terms of those abstractions.

This, however, does not imply that the abstractions obtain in the extramental world.

Not quite sure what you mean, but it sounds comedic. :lol: — Janus

You always get my jokes. So, look into the humor and you will get the meaning. :grin:

But as a nominalist, you know that nothing is absolute, so why would we begin to think such about Aristotle? — Merkwurdichliebe

"Think such about Aristotle"--think something "absolute" about him?

Yes

I don't know. What "absolute" thing was on the table?

That Aristotle was of absolute value. And we have univocally confirmed that he is not. Thank you.

I don't believe we could "forgo those abstractions" and still discuss what we seem to be attempting to discuss.

This, however, does not imply that the abstractions obtain in the extramental world. — Terrapin Station

I haven't said that it would or would not imply that. I don't even know what it could mean or what an "extramental" world could be.

Ah--got it now. Most of Aristotle I see as an example of "mistakes to avoid," so the notion of him being of "absolute value" was pretty far from my mind.

I haven't said that it would or would not imply that. I don't even know what it could mean or what an "extramental" world could be. — Janus

Oy vey. :brow:

You always get my jokes. So, look into the humor and you will get the meaning — Merkwurdichliebe

Got it! The instruction mean, not the humour....yet. :lol: Actually I think I do almost get it now, but I won't attempt to explain, it because that would be likely to ruin it.

I don't believe we could "forgo those abstractions" and still discuss what we seem to be attempting to discuss. — Janus

Its nominalism for God's sake. Fuckin Christmas!!! :joke:

As a nominalist, I said:

That Aristotle was of absolute value. And we have univocally confirmed that he is not. Thank you. — Merkwurdichliebe

By absolute value I mean "nothing". By univocally I mean "you". And, by we I mean "me". WHat the fUck does that even mean???

Fuck, I ruined it. :grin:

Ah--got it now. Most of Aristotle I see as an example of "mistakes to avoid," so the notion of him being of "absolute value" was pretty far from my mind. — Terrapin Station

That is, actually what I meant.

Oy vey. :brow: — Terrapin Station

Yeah, that's a convincing argument!

Just in case you were not aware, I am not in any way arguing for platonism. I am arguing that our notions of identity and difference are indispensable to discourse, and that we have no good reason, since all our knowledge relies on them, to doubt their veracity. We don't possess the conceptual tools to coherently doubt their veracity.

So, while we may be inclined to think we can be fairly confident that a "real" world exists beyond our necessarily concept-laden perceptual experience, we really have no idea what such a purportedly extra-mental world could be like.

NNNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

The reason to doubt indentity through time is pretty simple. If there's a change in what we're calling "x," then "x" isn't identical at each of those "points."

So, while we may be inclined to think we can be fairly confident that a "real" world exists beyond our necessarily concept-laden perceptual experience, we really have no idea what such a purportedly extra-mental world could be like. — Janus

But we can be relatively confident in the assertion that there is some universality in the mechanism which begets the concept-laden perceptual experience of the human organism. Call it the neo cortex. Hence we can unify our individual concepts through language.

Re the idealist nonsense, I've no interest at the moment in sidetracking to a big discussion about that, too.

But you ignore what I have said which is that identicality (of parts) is not equivalent to identity (of the whole). So the identity of an entity across time is the totality of the entity across time, and it obtains despite the fact that the parts of the entity change across time. If this were not so we could make no sense at all of our experience. Even animals can identify individuals and objects in their environment.

That identification of an entity just is what indicates its identity, and it does not rely on all the parts remaining exactly the same through time. If you look at a cup on in front of you you cannot discern any microphysical changes that might be thought to have occurred to it from one moment to the next. We assume that such changes do occur, but if that assumption is correct it is specialized derivative knowledge which is based upon our identification of the entity in the first place, and it is not the case that our identification is dependent on those purported changes.

What "idealist nonsense" are you referring to? I for one am not arguing for any idealist metaphysical thesis. I don't accept idealism any more than I accept nominalism or naive or transcendental realism. Isms in general fail to capture the phenomenological nature and logic of our experience. So, your assertions about what "obtains" or doesn't obtain "extramentally" are nothing more than, to quote Dostoevsky, "pouring from the empty into the void".

But you ignore what I have said which is that identicality (of parts) is not equivalent to identity (of the whole). — Janus

I addressed that already. The latter is simply a mental abstraction that we make.

I haven't denied that the notion of identity is an abstraction; I've already acknowledged that it is; but we have no reason to suppose that the notion of identity is not based on anything actual. As I said before, even animals can identify objects and entities in their environments; and I doubt they are capable of abstraction. I am not sure what point you think you are making, but, if you are suggesting that identity is dependent on abstraction, or the ability to abstract, then you have it backwards. Perhaps you are conflating identity with the notion of identity.

As I said before, even animals can identify objects and entities in their environments; and I doubt they are capable of abstraction — Janus

Why would you doubt that? Why would it only be something that would evolve once we get to human brains and not in brains prior to human brains?

I don't doubt that animals can identify, but I doubt they can abstract, since to do that is to possess the capability to symbolize, to conceptually generalize. To identify is to establish, if not to conceptualize, identity. So, now you are admitting that identity as it is established is not an abstraction, unless you want to claim that animals are capable of abstraction.

To identify is to establish, if not to conceptualize, identity. So, now you are admitting that identity as it is established is not an abstraction. — Janus

To "establish identity" is to formulate the abstraction in question. Again, why would you doubt that brains would be able to do this evolutionarily prior to human brains?

To "establish identity" is to formulate the abstraction in question. — Terrapin Station

Not at all, it is merely to recognize entities. That animals do this is evidenced by observing their responses. It really just comes down to pattern recognition; being able to recognize recurring patterns. That ability does not rely on the ability to abstract; it is not an abstraction. The abstraction comes with the general notion of identity.

Not at all, it is merely to recognize entities. — Janus

We could say that one is recognizing something that has a particular set of causal connections to a prior existent.

"Think such about Aristotle"--think something "absolute" about him? — Terrapin Station

I don't know. What "absolute" thing was on the table? — Terrapin Station

Wow...

I can’t believe that someone who fancies themselves to be a philosopher just wrote this. This might be the most ignorant thing that I’ve ever read in my entire life. Absolutes are truths that are true for all things, and also, eternally true, so what in the f are you talking about?

Great reading comprehension.