Is Nominalism For Real?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2023
- Support the channel by visiting brianholdsworth.ca
Today, nominalism is the prevailing philosophy in whatever is left of the Western tradition. According to a few statistics I read, most philosophers surveyed described themselves as nominalists.
Nominalism holds that Universals, like woman, don’t exist, that these are just names that we give particulars. Like banana doesn’t exist, Banana is just a name we give to particular yellow things that are tricky to open but oh so rewarding if you can figure out how.
Nominalism denies that the essence of a particular thing exists and says that when you say dog, or tree, or banana, you aren’t really saying anything about objective reality, just your own mind’s way of organizing things into categories and articulating them with names.
But if we’re being honest, I don’t think anyone actually believes what they say about nominalism because it refutes itself in practice if not also in principle. It refutes the utility of using names to describe things.
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Podcast Version: brianholdsworth.libsyn.com/ - Розваги
I love how Brian refers to changing the labels on a bunch of fruits "an act of treachery and terrorism" and "the ultimate act of sabotage." This is great.
I work at a grocery store. I agree. Especially since some of my coworkers occasionally dabble in sabotage. Punks
My family was discussing this concept just a few minutes ago!
You must now discuss this all over again with your NEW Family!
Metaphysical synchronicity 😂
nominalism is necessary for relativism which is necessary to reject objective morality which is necessary to justify sexual misbehavior. End goal of the enlightenment
Nomination sounds a lot like relativism to me. If there is no objective truth, anything can be what we imagine it to be. If we literally acted on such a premise, a functioning realty would be impossible.
Nomination sounds a lot like relativism to me. If there is no objective truth, anything can be what we imagine it to be. If we literally acted on such a premise, a functioning realty would be impossible.
@@johnsposato5632. Yeah, we can form fundamental math equations that can solve general things, yet objective truths are questioned. SMH!
The irony of the video title is not lost.
Since I started encountering this way of thinking, it has never occurred to me that it's just the same exact age-old nominalist philosophical tradition being subtly, but surely, rebranded all over again. As you spoke, I kept reminiscing about Shakespeare's famous lines:
“What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”😊
I have a feeling that nominalism is a little bit more robust than what was described here, but what you are describing is likely what many in our society currently hold to be true, poor souls. It may be subconscious, or baked into them from their surrounding culture, but they are fleeing reality.
Transgenders
Don't worry. Is not.
@@carolynkimberly4021Sociological/psychological concept.
Brian! Absolutely great! I've been waiting for someone of substance to call out the culture on its love of nominalism, even though most of its adherents don't know what it is. This absurd philosophy is at the base of transgenderism. It's so good that you have brought this to light. If nominalism's culture warriors were made to face the underpinnings of their beliefs, they might well conclude that their beliefs are unsustainable.
Apropos of Brian's discussion of naming animals. When we are babies, we usually don't ask Mom or Dad, "What do you call that?" We ask, "What IS that?", thus showing the intuitive knowledge --- even in infancy --- that individual things are instantiations of a real thing, say, "cat."
So if i say that you are an idiot it means you really are an idiot, right? Ops. You would not say that you are an idiot but that someone called you an idiot.
Names and forms serve practical purposes. I drive a car, I talk about cars and use the word “car”. At the same time I can deny that there is a universal car that every car derives its existence from. At the end of the day an individual car essentially is a sum of its parts.
You are totally correct. Nominalism has trickled down into the culture.
It fits with the desire to construct our own reality, our own "truth" from a meaningless universe.
Kant perhaps bears much of the responsibility for its modern form since he denies we can have knowledge of things in themselves.
Kant was right though. It doesn’t come merely from a desire
P1: if nominalism is true, reference is impossible
P2: reference is possible
C: nominalism is not true
Are you still on discord?
@@sebastianofmilanhey! I'm on a bit of hiatus for a bit but I will be back. I'm still on MT's discord
@tylervenner3128 yet for some reason, labels/naming conventions are united by... something. Wonder what it could be...
@tylervenner3128Isn’t the statement “universals are not real” a universal?
@tylervenner3128 seems to lend to a type of conceptualism if anything, not nominalism
There necessarily needs to be some catness at least in the mind otherwise we couldn't meaningfully use the term "cat". How exactly can this term link particulars if it's referring to nothing?
I understood nominalism to be at least impractical. But you went way past that.
Quoting Chesterton: "There are things only intellectuals believe"
I consider myself a nominalist a bit, but in an entirely different way that you've described it. It's impossible to find any «essence» in material objects (St. Odo). It's obvious that what we call language refers to the mind creating a model of reality based on actions (see Whorf/Wittgenstein/Ong) that consists of different classes of objects. There is no consciousness without a model of reality, and there is no model of reality without a language, and there is no language without a mind. Raw reality is just a stream of stimulus to experience. But that doesn't mean that what we call reality, mind or language is something subjective. There is no private/subjective language in a strict sense. There is no private/subjective mind in a strict sense. Both sides of this dispute are wrong. In a realists model of reality, material things have essence. But what we call «material» is just a way we perceive things, and it's not even completely clear what we mean by «material». In a nominalists model of reality, language refers only to itself, so reality is something completely subjective, which leads consequentially to solipsism. However, as you've pointed out, we act as we live in an objective world and as other people (minds) do exist. So there are «universals» and there are «essences» in some sense. But we cannot say it's in anything we perceive because it is just not. We assume it in our actions, rooted in our model of reality. What we call an essence comes from the Mind. The Mind is what/who creates reality here and now, and our minds are just His children living in their Father's «mansions». This is how I see it.
Hey! I am an ex-Catholic, due, at least in some part, to becoming convinced that Nominalism is true. I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind me asking. First, how is that you see nominalism entailing that reality is subjective, and that it entails solipsism? I do not see either of those things being the case. Why would a rejection of Abstracta, but an affirmation of Concreta, entail that reality is subjective? And then second question is, how do you square your "nomialistic leanings" with certain Catholic teachings like that Christ has two natures? What is a "nature" in your view?
I think it's pretty clear what we think is 'material', when we're cold, tired, hungry, afraid or indeed overthinking.
Nominalists overthink in a clever way themselves out of reality. They 'float' - It's antithetical to a 'Creator' who made all things 'good' and even willed to assign 'names'.
One says, the 'truth' is abstract, subjective, the other says, 'No, it is not, 'I am'...
this is very similar to my own views, which so many seem to have difficulty in understanding. further, it seems like theres widespread confusion caused by the idea of nominalism itself.
@@pop6997 its not a matter of things being subjective or objective, but rather the recognition of language itself being merely a tool that weve created to model and comprehend reality. its actually really simple...
@@joebazooksI too find both extremes to be incoherent and impossible to embrace with any sort of consistency.
Mr. Holdsworth, I do so admire how much time and effort you put into these educational/catechetical youtube recordings, considering that you are a conscientious husband and father, and you work to make a living. This is a kind of evangelising.
I pray for you by name because I greatly appreciate what you are doing. May God give you the inspiration and strength to continue. 🙏🕊
Who know who's never nominalist? Children and other language learners. It takes a lot of complex layers of thought (but not mathematics) until someone settles on arbitrary sounds to signify nothings.
Exactly. Logic is the enemy of this stuff.
Thanks for the summary. I’ve struggled for a decade now trying to explain this particular renunciation of modernity to seniors at my classical school. I’m planning to work you into the repertoire! Well done.
"I mean that if nominalism had succeeded, it would have been as if Arianism had succeeded, it would have been the beginning of a confession that Christianity had failed. For nominalism is a far more fundamental scepticism than mere atheism." ~ G.K. Chesterton
A great summary. Another reason many students and philosophers slip into nominalism is that it does seem to capture the order of learning well. We begin our knowing through sensation of various properties. Over time we recognize unities, and start to apply universal terms like dog, cat, etc. and we don't see any essences that correspond to these terms, becuase it is something we can only know (typically partially) through metaphysical reasoning and abstraction. But denying any reality to these leads to all sorts of problems. E.g. what's the difference between a universal like dog or cat or the notion of a "pile" as in a pile of stones. How are we to make sense of the incarnation if there is no human nature in reality? etc.
Nailed it! Wish Matt Walsh would have had you explain this on his documentary.
Honestly, this is one of you best videos; it had me especially from the intro with that captura experience. Nominalism/Realism just brings me back to my philosophy undergrad. So on point, fantastic job.
This is a great commentary! My wife & I both listened to it and came to the conclusion that this is why so many of the world's smartest people, especially government bureaucrats, are idiots.
I love this content!. Thanks Brian!
Nominalism, just another form of collective madness.
Thank you so much. I didn't know the thing that bothered me in this society has its own name - Nominalism. Thank you, things make much more sense now.
No matter what concept you scurry off with, essentialism will prevail.
You teach so well thank you
This was excellent. Well done.
I feel like I am just now recovering from realising I was lost in nominalism without ever realising what it was. Atheists like I was, use ideas like "truth" and "good" but never explain how those things can exist if the universe is just atoms bouncing off each other. Explaining the existence of the visible world by handwaving about the Big Bang is one thing, but they completely leave out explaining the existence of the invisible world.
As someone once said, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible".
I enjoyed this video very much. I'm reading the Beguine mystics of medieval time so It's very relevant to my reading where they differentiate between Love and love. I just ordered a couple of books on the problem of universals. You know one thing leads to another so who knows where I'll end up. I relate all of this to my forest experience where names tend to become an obstruction to my seeking. Thanks very much.
Amazingly explained.
Thank you.
Great explanation and from all angles.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You are absolutely right on. This is not the first time I have heard this, but you said it very clearly and cogently. Nominalism is it dead end philosophy.
Please keep making these types of videos, we need them.
Ave Maria...🙏🙏🙏
For me as a literary translator, this is a matter of central importance.
Thank you for this video. I've watched a few videos about Nominalism but I think yours was the first to also explain why people want to believe this way. And you also addressed my question about, "Is this a practical way to live?"
Practicality doesn’t equal Truth though. Even if it’s not a practical way to live, it could still be true
Dr. Chad Pecknold is teaching another Institute of Catholic Culture course, and Nominalism is clearly a foundation built in this modern era.
Thankyou Brian.
Excellent!
"What is that?" They are most definitely looking for the name of the object.
Really good everyday examples
Your logic and understanding its a new low with this video
Matter is all that exists, forms are spatial arrangements of matter prior to change, and events are the transition between states (matter arrangements)
Yes! I've for a long time been of the opinion that catholics and atheists would have much more fruitful discussions if we'd understand the concepts of nominalism and realism.
The questions about the experience of "self" by Brian were very valid. He's also onto something when pointing out that living our every day lives according to nominalism would be impractical.
Recognizing patterns and assigning labels are critical tasks for us to function and our brains have evolved to do just that. By my view point realism in this context is the error of confusing these hard wired information processing techniques for the underlying structure of the universe.
The issue you’re having is a misunderstanding of metaphysics. Metaphysics isn’t a conversation about what is practical to us humans, it’s a conversation about what really is, regardless of our ability to act in accordance with it. The two aren’t mutually exclusive like you’re pretending they are.
I really like the Icon lantern in the background. is there a name for that?
Really interesting video but in the end I’m not convinced.
Though I will admit that the idea of being a space wizard who can manipulate the Mystic Realm of True Forms by an action as mundane as making cereal into breakfast has a certain glamorous appeal.
Peace!
Great thumbnail!
Yoooooooo this is my favorite topic haha! As the resident "ex-Catholic whose Nominalism played a large role in my deconversion", I'd be super happy to dialogue with you about this.
What made you leave? What position did you change too? Pardon my curiosity, btw.
@@monarchblue4280 I'm Agnostic now, and once I became convinced that Nominalism was true, I realized that I couldn't be Catholic. Transubstantiation isn't possible under Nominalism, since, under Nominalism, a thing is what its accidents are, to use Aristotlean language.
If nominalism wasn’t properly expressed in this video, Can you provide some of what you consider to be the best sources(books, videos etc.) on what nominalism is and arguments for it. Because I’ve always understood nominalism as how this video presents it. And nominalism doesn’t seem to make any sense if it were accurately expressed in this video. I would appreciate it.
@@robertlaprime6203 A great place to start would be an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy called "Nominalism in Metaphysics". It should be one of the first links when you Google plain old "nominalism". And not to self plug, but I have several videos about nominalism on my channel too.
@@NontraditionalCatholic One interesting thing about the catholic definition of real presence is that it is transubstantiation not trans-essencialization. That means that one doesn't exactly need to be an Aristotelian to agree with it. It uses the terms substance and species so it seems that you need to be at least somewhat of a metaphysical realist for it to work. Can it be compatible with nominalism? I doubt it, but I am no expert in scholastic terminology.
Not saying categories don’t exist. I do think it’s true that two people may be using the same word and be talking about two different things and two people can use two words and be talking about the same being.
yes, the child is asking about the world or a particular aspect of the childs own reality or experience thereof, but do not forget that you are using the tool of language to interact with your child and interface with reality
Kevin brought me here to listen. Whether he enjoys this or not. 😊😁
Ayyyyyye
Oh Brian...you nailed it! It is sadly true!🙏🏽🙏🏽
Very good.
If I say "I am a nominalist", am I using a universal?
Yes, you are. But nominalists don't abjure the utility of universals, only that universals have no spacio-temporal dimension , the presence of which is the nominalists' definition of reality.
Love the explanation but why can’t nominalism be true? For example red colour when does it end and orange begin? The convention can be expressed as wavelength but still a convention - you could call both colors orange and red as red? The problem with realism when you try to create a metaphysics of fenomena that are not discreet like statue of Apollo 😊but “liquid” where distinction between one and the other name/idea is a matter of convention. It doesn’t make everything relative just some things.
I was always curious what do realists belive happens when a new item is invented. Does its universal also come into existance or do we just discover it. If it had existed before does that impoly that there exists a universal for every item imaginable? Asking out of curiosity as a nominaist
The sons of Satan hate truth so much, they would even murder the truth made incarnate.
Oy vey!
Post V2 seminary prof. Wanted to avoid "being". Ontology and metaphysics were considered old hat.
I do appreciate the rage comic face.
Isn't it platonic to say that a nature doesn't exist in space and time and that universals are spaceless and timeless?
9:50 I'm curious as to what this would mean for someone who is neurodivergent and does function this way. I know it's suboptimal and a disability but what would you say to the person who uses this subject to say its real nonetheless?
if one views universals like woman or womanhood, red or redness, et cetera, as merely the labels or categories of associations made between particulars that display a quality or qualities that are similar to the quality or qualities of other particulars, what is this view considered to be if it is not considered nominalism? from the various descriptions of nominalism that ive heard, which vary greatly for some reason, this would be considered to be nominalism or some form of it. however, its completely different from the nominalism that you describe. i think many are confused by and or misunderstand nominalism itself. it doesnt follow from my view, which seems to be some form of nominalism, that names of things or the labels or categories become inapplicable to those things as those things change. if that were the case, that would defeat the purpose of language itself. rather, my view is the purpose to some degree and or the utility of language itself is to imbue persistence that is otherwise not present so that our mental models of the world maintain an adequate degree of utility and dont suddenly break down the moment something changes in the slightest, which is happening constantly. further, the physical manifestion of a particulars qualities are never identical the physical manifestations of other particulars qualitiies despite being sufficiently similar to warrant classification, categorization, or association to a universal. the map is not the territory. language is merely a tool that we have created to model and comprehend reality or our experience of it. or, perhaps i or those whove described nominalism to me misunderstand what exactly nominalism is. in either case, its clear that nominalism and similar views are very difficult for many people to understand.
When you say that metaphysics presents the best explanation rationally .... what do you mean?
Nominalism is inane.
It is a self-contradiction posturing as insight, which is concealing the fact (often even from its adopters/proponents) that it's a mere assertion against the real.
Nominalism is the only way to researcher in the end
Well if You didn't actually define what makes a river objectively the same as it was before everything in it changed, and just pointed out the pragmatic and contextual reasons (i.e living "as if" it was still the same Lake Mississippi) for treating it in such way - than you paradoxically made a case FOR nominalism, or at least a kind of nominalism... not against it ;)
I can create infinite number of universals at will. Maybe universals are just ideas/concepts? Nominalism...
Anybody have advice for someone who doesnt believe but wants too?
What I did was debate philosophy and metaphysics with your intelligent friends, trust your gut, go to a church.
Start praying to God asking him to give you faith.
Pray to God, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
If you want to believe, you're already off to a reasonable start. Though they claim it's for intellectual reasons, most atheists I know don't want to believe simply because they don't want to hold themselves to a standard that we're all bound to fall short of. Yet those who choose to believe continue to try regardless. If you want to believe but can't seem to take that leap, it's likely intellectual pride that's holding you back. I wish you much luck in your quest for faith. If you truly want to, I think you'll eventually get there.
Do you understand what it means to know, and what it means to believe, and the distinction between them?
Realism is actually in the lead but not by much.
Well dpne! I recommend The Theological Origins of Modernity by Gillespie, which is a remarkable expose of the disaster of nominalism,
Thumbnail game strong.
Are the doctrines of the hypostatic union and incarnation logical?
Yes
@@richardyates7280 but the doctrines create a contradiction
Where’s Kevin?
Still back in Chicago.
Here he is haha!
The emperor has no clothes
Wait people actually believe this?
2:20 what's "yellow" and what's "rewarding"?
TICh
You might say nominalism is where the wheels fell off for western civilization.
Nominalism..Wow!!..people that are living in their head to much..but I do love "pokey apples"..refreshing by itself or on pizza! God bless
Brazilian bananas are pretty easy to peel.
I suspect most people today are looking at nominalism in the rearview mirror.
Nominalism still allows that words have objective meanings. Nominalism would deny that there is a universal category of "woman" that exists apart from particular women. Nominalism would allow, however, that the word woman objectively refers to the ad hoc category that we have created and collectively agreed upon.
We are beyond that point today. Deconstructionism has moved beyond simply denying the existence of a universal category, into denying the objective meaning of the word itself. The very words we use, such as "woman" don't inherently mean anything.
Nominalism killed metaphysics, but deconstruction has killed meaning. We can't even discuss if there is such a thing as a real universal, because words don't mean. We are no longer at the point where we are saying that the word woman doesn't mean a universal category, but rather means a subjectively agreed upon conventional category. We are now saying the word simply doesn't mean at all.
i don’t want to sound disingenuous, but this pretty much looks like a straw man of nominalism which assumes a BUNCH of stuff about it, about nominalists, and even what his position itself, without making it explicit…
re: destiny?
They defy the natural law at their peril. Wait until the chickens come home on this. (Or whatever that thing is). :)
🐣=🥚=🍳
Why appeal to metaphysics? Couldn’t one say that things are determined by their attributes? An orange is an orange because it is round, eatable, has a rough peal and is of a colour between yellow and red.
What are attributes?
@@john-paulgies4313 descriptive details
I think you just appealed to metaphysics by defining the word "orange"; you listed its essential attributes.
@@saints51I think metaphysics implies the existence of things beyond matter, such as an essence or a deity. This is not necessary because we can define things based on their attributes.
@@Myself23512 How is an attribute not beyond matter?!
You can see orange in both the photons reflected off the surface of an eponymous fruit and those reflected by the molecules of Earth's atmosphere during a sunset. Yet neither of these things are at all similar in their material configuration: even the photons are different wavelengths.
Nominalists are Nominalist in name only.
Nominalism is straight from Satan.
And Ockham.
You didn't refute nominalism though. It is true that forms only exist in mind. Forms do not exist in nature outside of mind. However, God is the mind that creates reality, so to speak. So nominalism is true in that there are no "things" in terms of pure matter, but obviously life exists as separate beings, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that God created living things out of formless matter.
what ive learned from this is brian may be a robot because he fails captcha
I can't understand what the problem with nominalism is (or I've misunderstood you). Humans cognise the world through language and it resulted in concepts and universals. Linguistic concepts don't necessarily meet the structure of reality. And they don't actually have to. Both words and concepts are labels we employ for convenience, we don't have another better tool for cognition. There would be more use in reducing the effect of linguistic ambivalence rather than inferring some metaphysical nature behind concepts.
I think in all fairness to you, this video doesn’t do a good job of explaining why nominalism is suspect in a rigorous manner. However, it must be said that the problem is that nominalism and it’s related version of conceptualism are both difficult to justify or even defend than it might at first glance appear.
To see why this is difficult, take your own proposal as an example. You propose that universals are concepts that came about because it is the way humans cognize the world. The issue then is that this claim presupposes that all human beings share a manner in common on how they cognize the world. But, this then means that humanness or humanity is a universal that actually exists of whose one characteristic is the shared manner of cognition. Thus, the defence of nominalism ends up presupposing universals as actually true to put forth its own argument. The same occurs even if you try to propose that these universals are the result of some socio-cultural evolutionary process. This is because in doing so, you end up having to presuppose the existence of universals in regard to evolution or socio-cultural phenomenon. Or to put it more technically, you implicitly concede the existence of a universal essence to evolution or socio-cultural phenomenon whose particular instances are the processes that lead to the generation of different universals.
In short, the issue for nominalism and conceptualism is that all arguments to justify these positions end up having to appeal to a universal, making the position incoherent. On the other hand, there are actually good arguments for the case of positions that afford some degree of realism with regard to universals. So the only reason many today are nominalists is that they are living in a culture that is steeped in it after four to five centuries. Those who lived at the start adopted nominalism because it was a way to undermine the status-quo of society at the time. But, if one puts aside these ideological reasons, nominalism or conceptualism is not a position one should ever consider.
I hope you get a decent hemorrhoid cream or a comfier cushion. Sounds like you need it
Not sure I understand everything in this video.
It is not given to the human eye to see a thing as it truly is. Even when we use the word "woman" we are using something relative to describe something absolute. We don't know what God calls women--do we?
In our society the name and associated concept endures because of the enduring consensus on its meaning. That doesn't mean we know all the answers. The moment we get cocky God will humble us
Brian, what did you do when you were 9?😂
It’s fairly straightforward, if you are born with XY Chromosomes (even with Klinefelter syndrome which is XXY) you are Male or in the case of Swyer Syndrome you can have XY and still be classified a Women. On second thoughts it’s not as straightforward as I thought, can I have a paracetamol please 🐹
Platonism is demonstrably false. Nominalism simply the view that universals and properties are not things that exist. It is very compatible with a physicalist worldview.
Metaphysics refer to the cognitive activities of considering what is there independent of one's brain activity
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏BRILLIANT
Unfortunately, I think you are making a strawman here. Nominalism does NOT entail renaming everything that changes. Just because universals do not exist as abstract properties, does not mean that universals do not exist as concepts, or that they are not useful. In fact, a nominalist typically believes that the idea of universals exists exactly because it is extremely useful and adaptive, because universals help us groups similar happenings in the world, so that we do not get confused all the time. All this can still be true under nominalism.
I think realism is “people who give birth” versus women I don’t get insuring that “transwomen” are women like women who have actual genetic female DNA and natural female anatomy
but we still say "woman" when pointing out towards women who are for example infertile.
Before creation, if one asked God, “Do you have a concept of a cat in your mind?” what would he say? I believe he would say yes.
Hence, my solution to Nominalism vs Realism:
“Catness” objectively exists subjectively, in the eternal mind of God.
Therefore, “catness” is both objective and subjective-objective to us and subjective to God-and it is also eternal, timeless, spaceless, etc., since it is literally a concept in God’s mind.
This is the only reasonable solution to the debate I can imagine. There is no ideal, perfect cat in the material universe. There are only cats of various kinds. Categories are subjective and prone to shift.
But God knew from all eternity that he would create cats. It was a goal in his mind that they would exist one day. His idea of a cat is the perfect idea of Catness. And that idea exists, because God exists.
Very interesting. Isn't that a Platonic way of addressing the issue.?
@@richardyates7280 kinda sorta. It’s meant to be a middle-way, a Theistic compromise between Platonism and Aristotelian Nominalism.
Platonism says forms such as cat-ness are eternal, perfect, unchanging, necessary. My view says that they are contingent upon the creative mind of God. He could have invented a different ideal cat. Cat-ness is not immutable. But once God intends to create a cat (ie in eternity), cat-ness exists as his subjective idea. Once we exist, that idea is objective to us.
This is exactly what I was thinking also, how is it even possible to be a nominalist and believe in God.
This seems to be an attack on what Brian *thinks* nominalism is, rather than any substantial attack on nominalism? If you want to argue that nominalism is false, you just need to demonstrate that the "redness" that can be seen in a stop sign, a US flag and a tomato *actually exists* (has ontological status) independent of the particular things in which we observe it. This "redness", which has no extension in space or time, is NOT an idea in someone's head, and it is NOT part of the physical world, so you need to postulate a nonspatiotemporal acausal 'realm' as part of reality, and ideally, explain how human minds access it (since it's NOT part of any causal chain).
If you think non-material "redness" exists within a 'third realm' within reality (the platonist's stance you're defending), then once you've made this postulation, you need to establish its existence. It's not about whether things like "redness" are useful fictions that are convenient for communication and understanding (THAT would be the nominalist's stance) - it's about whether such a realm is REAL and ACTUALLY exists.
I don't think the denial of abstracta/universals has anything to do with woke-type attitudes, as the debate about the ontology of abstracta goes back rather a long way.
The fruits of atheism.
Your "nobody lives this as if it's true" argument is not really an argument at all. You could say that with any abstract theory.
P.S. I'd guess you'd say Platonic Forms are Real then...
It is one of the best arguments one could apply. For instance, I have no idea what you're saying right now. What is "argument" and obviously this isn't an "argument", written second, they're completely unrelated pixels. You reject any meaning to your arguments and put an end to debate when you reject metaphysics.
@@RealLukifer so the Platonic Forms are real?