Rather, it is both. — creativesoul
That simply presumes that arguments cannot be constructed around things which are self-evident. — Isaac
That's the question here so it's begging it do assume at the outset that the mere existence of debate automatically legitimises the terms of that debate. — Isaac
But it's not a philosophical puzzle. That's what I'm saying, it's a sociological one. — Isaac
None of them have a coherent meaningful notion of thought and belief that is amenable to evolutionary terms and/or progression.
— creativesoul
There’s a blatantly obvious reason for that. — Mww
Besides, the point I'm labouring here is not to convince you that universals are real, but to point out that I think it's a real argument, not simply a matter of verbiage. — Wayfarer
I really have no idea what your discussion of 'the relation of being north' adds to what I just said. It seems to me deeply confused. — Snakes Alive
When what you believe is inconsistent with every traditional or conventional school of thought, don't you think it's time to reconsider? — Metaphysician Undercover
So, does this creature have a 'soul?' Can it access the Platonic realm of 'abstractions?' These are stupid questions – instead, look at what it can, and can't, do! — Snakes Alive
...some locations will be north of other locations, and this fact exists independent of humans... — Marchesk
Independent of those who use cardinal directions... there is no such thing as "north of". — creativesoul
...the spatial relation of being closer to one pole versus the other exists, though. — Marchesk
Is it, do electrons exist? — Snakes Alive
Okay, sure. Is it, do electrons have similar properties? Okay, sure. — Snakes Alive
What else is there to say? — Snakes Alive
The idea that there are individual things classified as "electron" is the issue. How do we make this classification of individuals? — Marchesk
How is that there is such a thing as "kind"? — Marchesk
That there is a discussion to be had here as to how a world of individual things can be categorized. I'm not saying universals is the right answer to that. Only that it's a possibility to be debated. — Marchesk
Indeed it does. It's what we call "north of", as compared/contrasted to being north of. — creativesoul
Are you talking about the general ability to use nouns? What? — Snakes Alive
Are you asking how it is possible that different things share properties? — Snakes Alive
It does not become a possibility to be debated until you can clarify in some sense what you are talking about. — Snakes Alive
Yes, I'm asking a question about the human ability to put individual things into categories and hierarchies. It's either an epistemological question or a metaphysical one about the world of individual things, events, relations. — Marchesk
if I adduce enough arguments to show that time is unreal, time might stop. In other words, there is a recognition that since one can speak however one pleases, that one can in some sense 'make true' whatever one pleases, just by talking about it. — Snakes Alive
Oh I see what you mean now. To me this equates to the Akashic record, in theosophy.No, the formal realm is not heaven. It's the domain of laws, numbers, and so on - only by way of analogy, because it's only 'a domain' in the sense that 'the set of all real numbers is a domain'.
I'm really just not seeing that from anything you've written. — Snakes Alive
Aristotle's are more grounded. Let's just take one example from physics. All electrons have the same properties of mass and charge, along with others like spin which can vary. And they play a fundamental role in chemistry and electromagnetism. So we classify all such subatomic particles as a fundamental particle called an electron, which is universal across space and time. — Marchesk
This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.
During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?
I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg
None of them have a coherent meaningful notion of thought and belief that is amenable to evolutionary terms and/or progression.
— creativesoul
There’s a blatantly obvious reason for that.
— Mww
Which is? — creativesoul
What would it mean if the last proponent of scientism was pushed over with a quote? — csalisbury
What are we doing when we cite Bohr against Churchland? — csalisbury
Some time ago there was a meeting of philosophers, most of them positivists, here in Copenhagen, during which members of the Vienna Circle played a prominent part. I was asked to address them on the interpretation of quantum theory. After my lecture, no one raised any objections or asked any embarrassing questions, but I must say this very fact proved a terrible disappointment to me. For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Probably I spoke so badly that no one knew what I was talking about."
Later in their conversation, Bohr added,
"I can readily agree with the positivists about the things they want, but not about the things they reject. …Positivist insistence on conceptual clarity is, of course, something I fully endorse, but their prohibition of any discussion of the wider issues, simply because we lack clear-cut enough concepts in this realm, does not seem very useful to me—this same ban would prevent our understanding of quantum theory. — Neils Bohr
Jacques Maritain, Bernard Lonergan, John Haldane. — Wayfarer
So you're saying it's self-evident that universals refer to nothing, and yet people have debated whether they refer to something. — Marchesk
If one can understand the terms of the debate and participate in the debate, then yes, it's meaningful. — Marchesk
Is the argument over universals a topic in sociology? — Marchesk
the questions around why and how we do it. — Marchesk
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.