[Wittrs] Re: [Wittrs]: Nominalism / Sean

  • From: brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:53:52 +1000


Ok i'm going to try and clear the confusion on this post.

Nominalism is a metapysical position not an epistlemological position e.g In 
epistlemology we have a realist and idealist. The realist asserts that the tree 
is a material entity, the idealist asserts the tree is an immaterial entity i.e 
an idea of a tree. It is about the substance of the tree, do we perceive a tree 
or a tree idea?

The metaphysical or ontological position of nominalism questions the existence 
of abstract entitys of a certain kind that is Universals. (note; a realist on 
universals is not the same position as a epistlemological realist) Neither the 
realist or the nominalist question the existence of trees which they call 
particulars. the actual example of a tree is called a particular. A universal 
is bit more complex to understand and will try to explain. Say we have a 
dark-black cat and a light-black car. here we have two particulars a cat and a 
car, we also have two particular examples of the colour black. The light-black 
and the dark-black resemble each other as we would call them both black and 
only draw a distinction between the two when we contrast the two. What is in 
question is not the cat or the car or the two shades but the catagory 
"blackness". here we apparently have five types of thing, the cat and car, two 
shades of black and a category. The nominalist/realist debate is whet
 her there is an entity of this kind i.e. "categorys" that exist. The 
nominalist says no the realist yes.

This is the confusing part, in between epistlemology and metaphysics the 
positons are somewhat reversed. The relevance of the argument may be expressed 
in another example... Do numbers exist? If I took a piece of chalk and drew the 
number 1 on the chalk board does the number 1 exist? in one sense no, what does 
exist is the numeral 1 exists and is written in chalk so where is this existent 
number 1. some say it belongs in another realm a platonic heaven coined after 
plato as it him who first formed the question. Can we imaging a world with out 
numbers? mathematics, computers etc seem indespensible without numbers.

To reiterate, nominalism and realism on the ontological status of universals 
does no way question in any way or form physical objects but certain kinds of 
abstract objects.

Regards Brendan



WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009

Other related posts: