What is Nominalism? | Philosophy Glossary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- What is Nominalism? What does it mean, and how does it relate to Realism? You'll know in under 5 minutes of this Philosophy Glossary explainer!
More Philosophy Glossary:
A Priori & a Posteriori • What do A Priori / A P...
Analytic & Synthetic • What do Analytic and S...
Necessity, contingency, possibility • Necessity, contingency...
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions • Necessary and Sufficie...
00:00 - Intro
00:27 - Definition of nominalism
00:53 - Examples of nominalism
01:32 - Nominalism vs Realism
02:05 - Arguments for nominalism
02:53 - Difficulties for Nominalism
03:35 - Using ‘number talk’
04:57 - Summary
If there’s a topic you’d like to see covered, leave me a comment below.
Links:
My academic philosophy page: markjago.net
My book What Truth Is: bit.ly/JagoTruth
Most of my publications are available freely here: philpapers.org/s/Mark%20Jago
Get in touch on Social media!
Instagram: / atticphilosophy
Twitter: / philosophyattic
#nominalism #philosophy #glossary
Excellent Video- 10/10😊
Wow. That was a really interesting, concise, and informative discussion.
Thanks!
Very awesome, thanks for your efforts 🙏🏻❤️
My pleasure 😊
@@AtticPhilosophy if you wouldn't mind, could you make a video or a series of videos if possible on philosophy of ethics and how it relates to current global issues !!?
What a lovely man
I have some vague notion about Peano axioms based in set theory based in concepts like: 'thingness', 'same', 'different' as a potential path for explaining how numbers don't really exist. But I suspect it would take years to fully work through that.
One way to speed up the process of working through philosophical ideas: find suitable reading in the area, and work out the ways in which your idea agrees with, and those in which it disagrees with, the thing you're reading. SEP is always a great place to start: plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/
@@AtticPhilosophy Thanks!
the argument against nominalism begs the question, and glaringly
I don’t think so. The argument is that the best way to make sense of mathematical practice - eg by answering “is there a number between 2 and 4” with “yes” - is by accepting the existence of numbers. That argument begins with certain facts about mathematical practice, not by assuming that numbers exist, so it doesn’t beg the question.
@@AtticPhilosophyBut wouldn’t being able to answer the question require a thinking agent, one that could understand the concept of numbers?
Without a mind to ‘observe’ or answer what is between 2 and 4, then there really isn’t an answer.
There’s no frame of reference. 1 object in reference to what exactly? There’s just objects which interact with each other in space and time, all which causally react with one another. We use mathematics to explain this, but there’s no true basis in maths without a mind to describe what’s going on.
For example, you’ve got a whole pizza. You then cut it into 4 quarters. Do you now have quarters of an original pizza, or have you just created 4 separate objects (from our perspective anyways since we label this object that has the common properties of something we observe to be a pizza) that really and truly, even without a human mind, is a homogeneous combination of molecules with no true reference to how many there are?
I guess what my perspective seems to be, is that without any observer, there is 0 reference point for mathematics. Things just are. They have states, which change over time due to the universe’s fundamental behaviour. But 80 particles is the same as 1 particle in the sense that every single particle simply exists and interacts without any mathematical reference or inference
@@clintosss The same goes for any kind of object, e.g., there's a chair between me and the door. It takes a person (a mind) to give the answer, but that doesn't show that that person is required for the chair to exist. It would (according to most philosophers) continue to exist even if all minds went out of existence. But this is a different issue: about mind-(in)dependence, not about nominalism.
@@AtticPhilosophy Not really. Nominalism makes the claim that only certain objects exist, and things like numbers are simply ways of thinking about the way such things exist. Abstract objects do not truly exist in any form.
My point was that mathematics has no true bearing on reality, especially considering that without a mind, there’s no reference for anything to be mathematically described. Objects simply exist in their current states and are subject to the described laws of nature, and we simply use maths to describe it, but there’s no fundamental principle of the universe that requires mathematics. It’s literally all homogenous
Great stuff🙂btw, what kind of modality you accept?
All kinds of modality! Alethic, epistemic, doxastic, temporal ... all with different properties. For alethic modality (possibility & necessity), I think S5 is the right system.
@@AtticPhilosophy I have been looking hard into how these different modalities can expressed using different systems of modal logic, and I learnt this:
S4 is the most common for representing epistemic modality, but there are peculiar features, such as, the agent is strongly logically omniscient (they automatically know all logical truths of S4 modal logic) and deductively omniscient (they know all the logical consequences of these truths, no matter how long the formula). For example, there could be a formula so big that it takes 1000 pages to write it, but the agent knows it lol.
What systems do you think are appropriate for each modality? I have looked into it, and I found that some popular ones are these:
Alethic: S5 (very agreed on)
Epistemic: S4 (many argue that it's too strong, due to the logical and deductive omniscience)
Doxastic: KD4 (but some argue that it may be too strong), K5c (converse 5 axiom).
Deontic: KD (but there are some paradoxes)
Temporal: KD4 with two tenses
What do you think of these?
Can someone name me some historical nominalists about properties while being realists about numbers? Perhaps this is the distinction between the essential argument of Pythagoras versus Plato.
Surely there is a distinction between the nominalism which attempts to refute things like the Platonic concept of universal forms (things will tangible existence such as chairs or apples) and that which refutes the existence of non-tangible entities such as natural numbers or logical truths? I would always reject the first set of universals but I would never deny the existence of numbers. What sort of nominalist does that make me? Thanks!
That’s right - you can be a nominalist about one category but not another. One classic way is to treat properties as sets of possible individuals - so a kind of nominalism about properties but realism about mathematical entities.
The philosophy of mathematics and numbers in its simplest form is a great graveyard for philosophical ideas LOL. Especially if they are very dogmatically held.
The nominalism arguments in metaphysics (over properties) are similar. It's hard to dismiss them without dismissing metaphysics full stop.
@@AtticPhilosophythe intuition I have only 2 minutes into the video (as someone who's finally working on graduating from my more loose, incomplete grasp of the subject) that Nominalists may be responding to the idea that Plato's Forms have some ultimate reality of their own abstracted from the objects that possess these properties that are the Forms. I would suppose that they especially find the idea dubious that the reality of these properties are "more real" than the objects that can be described, qualified and quantified according to said properties.
I'm sympathetic to both views, able to switch between perspectives somewhat like it's a Necker cube or the image of candle/two faces kissing.
Always throwing around the word "exist". What does it mean?
Are you a nominalist or realist about numbers? Pardon me. I've not been able to access any of your academic texts through my school, but the summaries of some of your books seem to imply you hold realist views about modality. Hence, I'm curious to see what your views are on the ontology of numbers
I'm a realist about most entities, including numbers. fwiw, there's prepreprints (no paywall) of most of my papers here: philpeople.org/profiles/mark-jago
And this book is open access (click top-right of page):
global.oup.com/academic/product/impossible-worlds-9780198812791?cc=gb&lang=en&
@AtticPhilosophy Thank you! I'll be digging in haha. If I may: Are you a platonist about all of pure mathematics, or do you confine your platonism to certain sets like the natural numbers while remaining agnostic about other areas?
Is there a number between one and three?
Depends on what the meaning of is is.
In context, it means 'does there exist a number between 1 and 3'?
I am a Nominalist: "All that is not a particle let alone composed of particles, it is imaginary ie does not exist ie does not cause"
My own (preliminary) listing of the imaginaries = awarenesses = informations = abstracts = conceptuals = properties = truths = meanings = opinions = inside-brain-MERE-effects = epiphenomena is
(1) All proclaimed sensations (such as colors)
emotions (such as problems, (un)happiness, fear, optimism, sexual inclinations),
values (such as correctness, beauty and usefulness),
is-ness = existence, evidence
ought-, should-, must-ness = relevance, importance, necessity
meanings, intentions, purposes, desires-/ wills - and the respective counteremotions.
Such as: freedom and captivity, free will and determinedness, love and hate,
appreciation and disgust, bright-NESS and dark-NESS.
But also identity and distinction (ie logic)
(2) ALL proclaimed-, measurable parameters in the language of physics:
(rest-) MASS, distance, area, space, density, time, velocity, acceleration (gravity is an example),
force, impulse, pressure, power, ENERGY, temperature
(3) ALL proclaimed numbers, measurable constants, ALL (!) Fields in the language of physics.
And all LAWS - of games, legislature, AND of logic, morality, physics
(4) ALL proclaimed worldviews / ideologies
Sciences, Theism, Social Darwinism, Humanism
including the element of Theistic worldviews called Gods -
such as YHWH, Jesus (THE) Christ, Allah
The proclamation IS real! (SYMBOL)
The being proclaimed is imaginary (REFERENCE)
IE: The proclamation is NOT caused by the imaginary!
The proclamation IS caused by the real (things = REFERENT)
'
As regarrds chapter (2) above, the measurement or calculation, also called value or quantity is real (SYMBOL!)
the being proclaimed = symbol-IZED is the parameter (imaginary = REFERENCE)
That’s pretty severe nominalism! Most nominalists allow for mental states, understood as a kind of physical state. It’s hard to deny eg pain exists, since you experience it directly.
@@AtticPhilosophy Thank you for responding.
Please consider: The pain IS "already" the experience!!!
We DO feel = DO experience: BUT the very real (material) thing -
such as a wound. IE:What is outside the brain!
Now, the sensation called pain is, beyond any doubt, an illusion,
bcz it is fabricated with-IN (in-side) the brain
yet being allocated AT outside the brain,
namely accurately where the wound factually IS.
IE the brain fabricates an illusion (necessarily so, so to speak)
I verily wonder why nobody else mentions what I just mentioned here.
Kind regards from GERMANY
I would suggest that you not attempt to use language as a means of assaulting nominalism, since, a nominalist such as myself also has issue with language due to language being a construction often predicated on errors of understanding such as "sunrise". MOST likely understand what is the case now, but the term arose from a misunderstanding as to what is occurring.
There are many times language is an impediment to understanding given the assumptions of meaning of any given construction even as the meaning is what the individual has inferred and imposed on the words. Unfortunately, we have little choice but to use language even with all of its issues.
I think the idea of the map (cognitive tapestry) is not the territory (domain of review) is something that should be seriously considered when dealing with frameworks of understanding which is the nature of nominalism and realism. It is why I consider the idea of model dependent realism to have a strong point. We all create models and the meaning that is a product of the model may in fact be gibberish to those that don't understand the model,
You need to use language to do any kind of philosophy - it’s the only way to express the arguments. You have to be careful to chose language that’s as precise & unambiguous as possible.
@@AtticPhilosophy I agree that language is currently our only means of sharing our ideas, unfortunately, it is full of ambiguities due to many byproducts of how it is used, learned, understood, and the model of thought being used which may be largely incompatible with various embedded meanings generally understood within a particular language.
See Essentially Contested Concepts.
Define a Chair. When does it become a couch? or define what a Human is? change on gene at a time and tell me when its not a human anymore.
to me that is what Nominalism is, no?
Nominalism’s antithetical is Platonism rather than realism.
There are intermediate positions - neither nominalist nor platonist.
Bold claim of you to assume that chairs exist🧐
I know, hope you were sitting down!
dear professor, if you are a nominalist you don't get to use predications and universals at all you can't justify them, and the translation project is a failed project
You can't use language at all without using predicates - you can't even say "I'm a nominalist!" The challenge for nominalists is to explain how using predicates is meaningful if they don't correspond to properties in reality. There's been many attempts to do that - the jury's out on whether any are successful.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck
Quite, but what’s that got to do with nominalism?!
@@AtticPhilosophy It's a statement of universals.
@@cardenioscouse6238Nominalists believe in ducks too! Just not in duckishness.
Tell any die-hard Redditor the definition of Nominalism and prepare for a fight.
Why so? Very not interested in a fight!
numb3r 741k
Ok Realists.....
Is my girlfriend real?
#day1nomalist
Probably not 😂
Nominalism seems pretty obtuse and like it could make a nonsense of language.