/lit/ - Literature

What's the problem?

>>11142804
Nothing, what's a matter with you?

>>11142796
*autistic Nominalist screeching*

>>11142796
Realism. It may be unpalatable to the physicalist but something must explain the order I perceive in nature

universals aren't a problem if you aren't a brainlet

>>11143421
explain universals and particulars in a satisfying rigorous way that establishes a coherent system of ontology

>>11143425
Is it okay if I call my ontology Zermelo-Franklin set theory?

>>11142804


She left me

>>11143409
This.

If you're Christian, you can take the Augustinian position and say that the Forms all emanate from God.

>>11142796
Derrida already did

>>11143525
sure as long as you can explain it, I don't know what logic nerd reference you just made but I like the name

now tell me your system or I'll invoke dark pre-Aryan spirits and send them into your bardo state AFTER you die and you'll have astral fuckery to deal with for ages to come

>>11143858
HHAHAH

>>11142796
Very carefully.

>>11143863
>In mathematics, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, named after mathematicians Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel, is an axiomatic system that was proposed in the early twentieth century in order to formulate a theory of sets free of paradoxes such as Russell's paradox. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the historically controversial axiom of choice included is commonly abbreviated ZFC, where C stands for choice. Many authors use ZF to refer to the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice excluded. Today ZFC is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and as such is the most common foundation of mathematics.

>>11143830
>>11143409
>mfw when I am a realist

>>11142796
Universals and metaphysics as a whole are arbitrary abstractions that have no relation to reality. Phrase them however you like, for whatever purpose, they are irrelevant to reality. There is no problem to begin with. If you want to find the most fundamental consistencies of reality or the universe, then look to physics. The result will be highly abstract (meaning that they can be phrased and presented in an infinite number of ways) terms that can't be comprehended outside of the very specific context of physics. They won't tell you how to live your life or the essence of humanity or some inane shit.

Mental Theory

>>11142796
It's like the existence of God. It actually *is* a problem, but it's still perfectly fine to just not give a fuck. Serious philosophers don't give a fuck about universals. Students do.

>>11144334
>that have no relation to reality.
They do - its based off of our observations and deductions from those observations.

>>11142796
Unrelated but is string theory metaphysics for physicists?

>>11144334
>particulars aren't instantiations of universals

>>11144334
If there is no universal truth which you can convey to me, how could I take your position to be true?