THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS

[@johncracker5217]

I am a platonic realist, and I don’t see why Platos abstracted form doesn’t serve as the proverbial third man to connect the two instances of man that Plato’s theory is clearly based on in the first place

[@gabrielteo3636]

Good summary. Assuming we are only atoms in motion, what position should we hold? We seem to be pattern seeking machines. Our internal world would just be simplified models of the external world. Red would just be a model in our brains and whenever we experience/see something sorta like what we call red, we put it in the self created model of "red". The reference is our own experience from our eyes and our memories of the experience. Where does red end and orange begin? Seems arbitrary. It is conceivable, I can stimulate your brain with electricity and you would see red, but there is no red object. It is also conceivable to stimulate your brain in a way to make you think torturing babies for fun is good. There would be no universal red, just red-like and the standard for putting things in the red category is some individual arbitrarily chosen sensation and your memory. I can also arbitrarily create new abstracts and universals at will. Would that be a blend of nominalism, fictionalism and conceptualism or is there another name?

[@aisthpaoitht]

Materialism is false

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@aisthpaoitht "Materialism is false" Maybe. It is just the best evidenced theory from scientific inquiry.

[@aisthpaoitht]

@@gabrielteo3636 actually that's not true. It requires believing unsupported inferences. Read Why Materialism is Baloney by Kastrup for a good primer. It's short and to the point. Consciousness/being is fundamental. The physical spacetime world is our mental presentation of an unknowable underlying reality. Quantum mechanics shows this - matter is actually unformed potential at the lowest resolution.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Two basic uses for language. Language is a way of representing the world to ourselves. In this usage we can think about the world, say, create a hypothesis. Language is also used to communicate to other people, say, in order to cooperate. These are very different purposes. What would a third basic use of language be? Posted in the wrong place.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Are your universals the same as my universals? Is 'This is a universal' a matter of individual opinion or cultural indoctrination, or something else? Is calling something a universal just another way of saying 'I'd bet the farm this is true'? So what does the philosophy of universals think of opinion? Is it that opinion is mind dependent, but may be mind independent at the same time? In my mind 'mind independent' should mean the real thing not a statement about 'the real thing'. A slippery subject. Also, posted in the wrong place.

[@MrGustavier]

I didn't understand the critique of conceptualism... Why would "arbitrariness" be problematic for an anti-realist ?

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

What are your thoughts on trope theory nominalism. Do you think it’s the correct position to solve the problem of universals?

[@philonew]

I think it is an interesting theory but I have my doubts for the reasons I state in the video.