Nominalists cannot explain how ordinary language works without contradicting themselves.
lol how the fuck is Plato a realist?
lol philosophical intuitionsthis whole thing is a mess>hexagons>have a literal definition re: properties. shape>are intuitionskek>realism is naming thingsdouble kek>nominalist cant name things because languagedid AI make this shit?.
>>25414268because he believes universals are actualtextbook realist, realists are often called "platonists" because of this
>>25414275does a triangle have three sides?am i an actualist or a nominalist?
>>25414276whats your point?
>>25414283i see you have none.
>>25414285my point is clearly written as a statementyour "point" is a rhetorical question and vague gesturing; when asked to explain - more vague gesturingit appears i have a point and you dont
>>25414289my 'point' is a dialectical question. and my 'vague gesturing' is a refutation of your actual rhetoric.you arent even the shadow of an appearance...
>>25414292a point cant be a dialectical question, the question is just a means to the end, which end is the actual point. i simply requested the endpoint, which you dont want to provide, because you have noneyour vague gesturing isn't a refutation since it doesnt address anything from my statement, which was not at all rhetorical>you arent even the shadow of an appearance...holy edgelord
>>25414302nice rhetoric.try reading and thinking.
>>25414305do you think you came out of this conversation looking better than before you entered it?
>>25414308i think you entered this conversation with cum all over your face and then left with my cum all over your face.
>>25414313im gonna have to respectfully decline your request to roleplay a gay sexual scenario
>>25414276"a triangle"? sounds like speculation => nominalista specific triangle you have data about => contingent on data, maybe you lied and it ain't even a triangleThe Triangle? yes => realist>>25414257they won't assume responsibility, nominalism probably stems from thatthe supreme example is probably the Talmud, which contains 99 different interpretation for each verse of the Torah, so the rabbi can choose the most profitable one... I am exaggerating, but that's what it boils down to
>>25414317ok, cum face.>>25414319nice. is the definition of a triangle a construction of language or (it has a definition and a name?) an independent property of an area bounded by three points regardless if anyone can see it?
>>25414343NTA. Triangles would have the same properties even if there were no triangles and no language in which to speak about them.
>>25414359do you mean to say that potential triangles would have triangle-properties even if there were no actual ones?
>>25414343the definition of the triangle (we can just call it The Triangle tho) came before language and even thinking
>>25414369NTA. potential triangles would have the properties of The Potential Trianglei'm joking but was too good to miss
Don't pulsars out in deep space pulse out prime numbers? If so that settles the debate in favor of the Realists. Because what's more fundamental to reality than math? And it exists independently of us. So numbers are Real, and lots of other things probably are too.
>>25414384no it didnt>>25414369lol there areno potenital triangles>>25414359so are you a realist or a nominalist?
>>25414257Semantics. Universals don't exist in physical reality, so Nominalists are right; but universals in imaginary reality don't need humans to be imagined, so Realists are right.>inb4 "imagined without humans"Consider an intelligent alien species. Do you really believe they would look at two stones and not imagine the abstract number?
>>25414462>t. I ain't gay but $20 is $20
>>25414468?
>>25414369Yes, although obviously "triangle properties" is a deficiency of language. >>25414459Realist.
>>25414412No, this is a sci-fi myth. They don't even pulse, they just rotate regularly and emit EMR from their poles. The frequency is completely arbitrary, although it's extremely regular and can be used for very precise timekeeping.
>Umberto Eco models the dude from Name of the Rose after William of Ockham, a nominalist par excellence>the title "Name of the Rose" obviously pokes fun of nominalists>yet, at the end, he is the hero, corroborating Eco's atheismwhat did he mean by thispic unrelated... probably
