If you say objects don't share an abstract form, then they must share a material one. — Gregory
So you have to say something abstract is involved in an object, which is to reject matter altogether — Gregory
The liquid. Why would it be the condition? A condition doesn't possess any of the qualities that would make up "wet".
That's why I posit that the liquid itself has "laws" that determine its "states". We merely discover those laws. We don't make them up. If they were entirely mental constructs, then how come when we alter them, the things bound by them don't change behavior accordingly?
The abjective “wet” describes the noun “condition”. — NOS4A2
It’s just another way of saying the water is wet. — NOS4A2
We’ve devised the units of measurement, the languages, the formulas, the metaphors, the laws — NOS4A2
hold it up to nature and make sure it’s an as accurate representation as possible. — NOS4A2
Considering I defined them to be the same I would say my intent is pretty clear: — khaled
A is B
B exists
Therefore A exists
If so, replace A with "boiling point" and B with "the temperature at which something boils" and you get "the boiling point (a property) exists" — khaled
Just when I thought we were starting to make some progress — Metaphysician Undercover
Since a universal or abstract object would not string to any particular object in the world, it is without a referent or is self-referential, and has little bearing on my ontology beyond the marks on paper and the guttural sounds that spell out the universal. — NOS4A2
The idea that an abstract object must refer to some concrete object because we can speak about it and treat it with noun-phrases doesn’t suffice for me to accept its reality. — NOS4A2
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.