Nominalism is correct
>>14235359Nominalism is an extreme of mysticism, just like how schizo witc-hunts were extreme form of legalismAny extreme is incorrect
>>14235369>any extreme is incorrectextreme statement isn't that
absolutely, platonic realism as a solution to the problem of universals is absurd in the same vein, when radtrads go on about how nominalism 'ruined' the west, they have no idea what nominalism actually entails. they'll usually conjure up a definition similar enough to how charles peirce would define it, without understanding that realism under this definition would include moderate realists like aquinas and scotus
>>14235359Nominalism makes no sense and isn't rational. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8F1VYkh5QU&tOccam was wrong and this lecture defeats it.
>>14235500>open link>see bloviating larper in a halloween costume>close link
>>14235524He's not a LARPer. He's a trained Bishop that started his first independent church in 1984 (he has a network of churches), his own network in 1993, and his own seminary in 1995.
>>14235359Is purple just red and blue mixed together or is it its own color that exist independently of red and blue?
>>14235528Literally irrelevant, hylomorphism is outdated drivel and the only reason anyone would perpetuate the idea is if they're larping.
>>14235378saying the orthodoxy is correct being extreme (heresy) in what sense and way exactly?
>>14235537It makes lots of sense and it fell out of fashion because of the modernist conspiracy.
>>14235552It fell out of fashion because mechanistic explanations actually work, schizo.
>>14235446Nominalism is equally as absurd, it reduces all predication to gibberish. If nominalism is true, then 'the grass is green' is equally as true as 'the gkfjd is jfkfkd', since the meaning of the propositions is identical. If there is no corresponding reality behind the name of 'grass' then to speak the name of 'grass' is to speak a word which describes nothing. Now we may say that what the word 'grass' describes is the idea of grass, but then we have explicitly denied nominalism since the question is "does the idea of grass exist?" and the answer of the nominalist is "no, it is only a name". Whereas Platonism makes it impossible for universals and particulars to interact, nominalism makes it impossible for universals and particulars to exist. Particulars cannot exist any more than universals, since it raises the question "a particular what?", and 'particular' is itself a universal; the idea of an instance of an idea. Biblically, I may conclude that universals exist as ideas in the mind of God. God conceived of mankind, and then men proceeded to exist. I am made in the image of God, so I think like God, so I am able to think about both universals and particulars just like God does. And what allows universals and particulars to interact is the act of creation.
>>14235616I accept your concession.
>>14235620Thank you for this demonstration of my argument. I couldn't have done it better myself.
>>14235632Your argument is called argument from ignorance.
>>14235639Ignorance of what?
>>14235588this is a divine conceptualist approach, no? i think i've firmly rooted out platonic idealism as an answer to the problem of universals (with the exception of mathematics), but i haven't done much research into divine conceptualism just yet. if you believe nominalism reduces all predication to gibberish, i would have to ask which nominalism? i can see certain forms doing so, but i think trope theory and ostrich nominalism can provide cogent solutions
>>14235645Metaphysical concerns are a result of misuse of language.Metaphysics is nonsense.
>>14235657Yikes>>14235651>which nominalismAll of them, the problem is at the definitional level of nominalism because no matter what the nominalist is ultimately going to have to say there's no such thing as grass and no such thing as green, the best nominalism can get you is 'this grass is this green' which is truly meaningless in every conception, but especially a nominalist one.
>>14235743Go study Wittgenstein, thomist retard.
>>14235751Is he an intellectual child like you?
>>14235751Not him but language has to be defined. If there is no definition of anything and everything is simply subjective that's how you get Bruce Jenner claiming to be a woman.
>>14235359The logical result to nominalismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrVwB0d-q4w
if we're to say things only exist because people perceive them, then its nominalism, but we know things exist anyways so the rational conclusion is realismbut if you believe in a god, wouldnt it mean everything exists only because god perceives it? if he could change how he thinks the world should be then everything we know is subjective
>>14236030>if we're to say things only exist because people perceive them, then its nominalismThat's not nominalism. Nominalism denies universals, not particulars.
>>14236129How would you debate the claim that the reason we have things like 52 genders or people identifying as otherkin or things like that is nominalism?
>>14235609if thats true then why not make language completely logical"For instance saying or referring to "the world" does it mean any "world" or a particular "world", or which of the many "worlds"? if we prefix it with "red world" does it mean any red world or something like Mars or another planet that is defined by "red"? Furthermore, "red" only denotes a color, but you cannot say "I am going to the red" the red what? the red house? the red factory or something absurd like "Clifford the big red dog"? No, entertain me for a second. that sentence is defined by "Clifford" and them being "red" and a "dog", those words taken alone are simply descriptions, as who is "Clifford"? Clifford could be anyone, and the word "red" could be capitalized as "Red" and it might denote "Red Foreman" from a particular sitcom we have watched in the past. "Red Foreman" is two names, not just designating any "Red", but a particular "Red", that of the "Foreman" clan. Take something like "Father John Simpson", by this induction we know he is likely a priest, his name is John, and comes from a family of Simpson. taken alone, those three predicates are really all just universal things, as "Father" could mean your father, my father or a priest. John could be anyone named John and Simpson could be any family named Simpson, as it does not denote a particular significance to a specific clan of Simpsons, but any Simpson."
>>14236147How is it realism?
>>14236156the genders are all real, infallible things chuds
>>14236164where does it say that in the bible