real doesn’t mean realism. — I like sushi
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
OK. When did the River Thames (for example) become 'that' river? It will have been a trickle at one point in the past. It would certainly have been in a different location before the southern uplift created the North Downs. So at what point in its history did it become 'that' river?
And while you're at it, you can explain at exactly what point 'that' river ends. How far out to sea, or how saline must the water be before it is no longer 'that' river? Where does 'that' river begin for that matter? Underground? The moment it breaches the surface? As soon as other tributaries join it?
I'm regularly dumbfounded by the number of people who seem to do philosophy on the basis of the whatever seems obvious to them must therefore be a fact of the world. It's unbelievably lazy thinking. — Isaac
Those are not consequences or troubles arising from my position. They are consequences of a strict adherence to nominalism. I've no burden to defend those.
The irony of it all given the charge of "lazy thinking"... — creativesoul
Do you want to present an actual argument yet or shall we just clarify that we disagree for a bit longer? — Isaac
Need I present an argument to show you that nothing you've said bears upon my position? — creativesoul
We isolate and subsequently identify a thing by virtue of naming practices. Some of those things change and/or evolve. It is the same thing nonetheless. — creativesoul
The Danube's changes cannot be properly accounted for unless it's identification remains the same. — creativesoul
"The Danube" picks out that river to the exclusion of all others. — creativesoul
It's the same river. — creativesoul
Indeed it does, which is a discussion about language. Nomilaism is an ontological position. It's about what exists extra-mentally, not about how language works. — Isaac
Good luck trying to pin “creativesoul” on this point. Granted the semantics of the discussion matter, but I fear the aforementioned person is perhaps more interested in weaving back and forth between various semantic values than sticking to one in particular (after a page or two of what is about to proceed you may come to the same conclusion). — I like sushi
Another word for that (objectively existent/independent of human thought) is "real."Which generally means they hold the view/s that some item is objectively existent . . . and/or is independent of human thought — I like sushi
If someone was to say to me they were a realist it wouldn’t give me anything near an understanding of there overall view. — I like sushi
Things are in a constant state of flux. The identity of a thing need not be. In fact, change could not even be taken account of if we demanded such. — creativesoul
Nominalism is a philosophical position based upon the semantics of the word "same". — creativesoul
And in a metaphysical discussion “real” can also be taken to mean ‘universal’ and/or make a claim for an ‘essence’. — I like sushi
Nominalism is a philosophical position based upon the semantics of the word "same". — creativesoul
Nominalism is a philosophical position based upon the semantics of the word "same".
— creativesoul
In what way does that distinguish it from any other philosophical position? — Isaac
As I was pointing out to Janus, what nominalists are denying is that two numerically distinct instances can be exactly the same... — Terrapin Station
The point is that we identify with names. The names often remain the same even if the referent has undergone significant change. The other point is that a strict nominalist cannot account for a thing changing. — creativesoul
There are much better ways to deny that much. Some which do not lead to reductio. — creativesoul
We all know that entities are constantly changing, — Janus
they end up saying things like you cannot step into the same river once. — creativesoul
There are people, including philosophers, who posit that multiple instances of things, whether temporal or spatial or both, can somehow be (not just conceptually, not just in name, etc.) identical in some regard--that is "exactly the same," numerically identical in some regard. — Terrapin Station
they end up saying things like you cannot step into the same river once.
— creativesoul
You've said that a couple times. Could you maybe explain it? — Terrapin Station
Janus You agree above with creativesoul yet you fall into the trap of assuming there is such a thing as a “strict nominalist” with little appreciation of wha that means. — I like sushi
Yes, and in addition there must be continuity and sufficient commonality of attribute (sameness and uniqueness) across time within that which is being named to ensure that the name can continue to be coherently used to refer to it.
The point is that we identify with names. The names often remain the same even if the referent has undergone significant change. The other point is that a strict nominalist cannot account for a thing changing.
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.