Universals don't exist.
So the universal “particulars” doesn’t exist?
>>18521886particulars aren't universal
>>18521889This particular gopher, or that particular duck, or this particular retard have something in common: “particular”. Therefore, it is a universal.
>>18521892You can think of it as "thing" if you want. We use the word "thing" universally to refer to different "things", but that doesn't mean there is a universal thing(s)
>>18521898Yes, all these different things have the property of being a thing in common, which means “thing” is a universal since it is common to many particulars. If everything is a metaphysical island, then nothing is, since they all have the property of being a metaphysical island in common. Therefore, nominalism is false.
>>18521880Don't you mean that you have reached a merely psychological generalization between all observed examples of the nominalism/realism debate? If you achieved your position by rational deduction you must have relied on some rules of inference that, you must attest, are mere accidents of your psyche.
>>18521880So there's no animals, no plants, no difference between life and death, everything is just grey shades? What a bizarre way of looking at the world, though the lens of quantity.
>>18521901No, they don't have such a property. It's just a non-physical (so a non-existing) tool to help us understand what they are, but we decide what things they have in common and what they don't have in common, if such categorization helps us understand them better. Logic is also just a tool. Mathematics is just applied logic. But that doesn't mean that the world is ruled by a perfect mathematical formula. Neither we or the world is enslaved by logic. Therefore it's perfectly fine to say that particulars aren't universal. Only insane Gnostics think that you can in theory have a perfect mathematical formula that predicts everything and you no longer have to rely on actually observing reality to describe reality. This thinking is the opposite of Aryan thinking. Aryans break a thing down in simple components and try to come up with rules, which describe them and can predict future behavior to achieve power in the real world.
The people on this board are so stupid that it's making me depressed.
>>18524076What in this thread is upsetting you?
>>18524073It is important to note that it is also the case that there are multiple logics, logics like modal logic, deontic logic, paraconsistent logic, value free logic etc. They are all tools. We call this logical pluralism.
>>18524081The OP is a fucking cock mongling retarded NIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>18524083Intuitionistic logic is the only one we need
>>18521880What is the obsession you have for destroying your own vocabulary?
>>18521880Is it universal that universals don't exist?
>Universals don't exist.Even Quine has need to accept the "bitter pill of Platonism".The point is that entities like prime numbers, geometrical figures, or logical sentences act as if they have an independent reality. This property, having a mind-independent quality that shows itself through consequences not accepted, is, for the common mind, associated with "being part of the external reality".Logicians or philosophers may have good objections against this kind of naive Platonism. Unfortunately, the knowledge of being subject to an optical illusion doesn't make the illusion itself go away. The same applies to Platonism.It may be irrational and superstitious to believe that mathematics is something other than a set of arbitrary rules, but when you see a proof that shows a quality of, e.g., numbers you would never think about, this illusion has a strong grip on our mind.I, for myself, cannot help but surrender to Cantor's proof and flee to some kind of soft Platonism in the face of the reality of real numbers.
>>18521999This stage of debate was already reached by Locke, Berkeley and Hume.>>18522037You point to an interesting case, even if you're retarded.Aristotle developed his system of syllogism partly because he wanted to order the natural kinds of animals.Now, through our lens of natural selection, reality appears far more Nietzschean than Aristotelian. In other words, we humans observe different "natural" kinds of living beings because we see the history of the universe in slow motion.Actually, all life on Earth is, most likely, just the variation of a chemical process that started billions of years ago. The indications for this are irrefutable, e.g., the use of similar genes in beings as different as plants and animals, similar cellular structures in all eukaryotic life, etc.Yet, the different natural kinds are somehow real but their reality is far more abstract.>>18524073Doesn't follow.>>18524083>It is important to note that it is also the case that there are multiple logics, logics like modal logic, deontic logic, paraconsistent logic, value free logic etc. They are all tools. We call this logical pluralism.The different logics (or "logical calculemus") have some traits in common.There are still sound and unsound arguments and some kinds of logic, e.g. deontic logic, only applies under certain circumstances.
>>18524244This single post brings HOPE back to /his/
