We could say that one is recognizing something that has a particular set of causal connections to a prior existent. — Terrapin Station
I keep having to repeat that I have not said identicality is equivalent to identity. — Janus
Over the whole time of its existence an entity is obviously identical to itself, — Janus
we say that the identity in question ("cat x") is a mental abstraction, which is itself not identical through time. — Terrapin Station
The referent being the same referent each time it is referred to does not logically depend upon the referent being physically unchanging from one moment to the next. — Janus
It's logically the same. It need not be absolutely unchanged in order to be the same entity over time; — Janus
No, I don't agree with nominalism. I say that I am, logically speaking, the same entity today as I have been at every moment throughout my life, and that this logical sameness does not depend on my remaining absolutely unchanged over that time. — Janus
Well, as I said the only thing that remains absolutely unchanged is identity. — Janus
recognition is a mental activity, but what is recognized is not. — Janus
I haven't said that any aspect is "identical" — Janus
If nominalism is held by a coherent advocate thereof, then s/he must admit that we cannot step into the same river once... We cannot step into that river! — creativesoul
Regarding Nominalism, are you happy to say that ‘abstract entities’ such as ‘numbers’ exist but that they are not objects? — I like sushi
From my understanding of nominalism many would hold that a ‘chair,’ ‘banana’ or other such ‘concrete entity’ doesn’t exist, but that ‘numbers’ - as ‘abstract entities’ - do exist (just not as ‘objects’). — I like sushi
The confusion and misapplication of terms seems to me to be the main purpose of the nominalistic approach to discussion. — I like sushi
Be more careful in defining your use of terms and it would cause much less confusion. The term “real” is used in a variety of ways in philosophy. — I like sushi
As for the use of “real” it is far from apparent exactly what you mean. Not to mention I asked about what kind of “nominalism” previously and you appeared not to understand the question. Maybe if you look here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/#VarNom — I like sushi
there isn’t an instance where “real” is mentioned in that passage. — I like sushi
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.