/lit/ - Literature

Essentialism

nominalism

Essentialism is proved by Mathematical Platonism and the indispensability argument

>>17899050
>>17899065
why

>>17899134
What's the argument for p2m

>>17898448


Gnoseological Nominalism, but I'm Agnostic about the Universals until an evidence is given to me.

>>17898448
Isn't it idealism or nominalism?

Essentialism is inescapable.

Abstract away all concretes and you still have got the thingness of things, which exists regardless of consciousness and is in fact what consciousness perceives. The thingness of things is independent of consciousness as such, and thus proves nominalism false.

>>17898448

>>17898448
Both

>>17899134
P1 makes no sense. Just because some things are indispensable to our theories, it does not follow that those things exist. Our theories can rely on things that have no ontological status yet are useful for describing the world (as a result of the limitations of the human mind), our theories can be committed to things that are found to be dispensable after a paradigm shift, and it is in no way a deductive truth.
You have to deduce something's existence through metaphysics. You can't appeal to epistemology to prove something exists. Of course this argument would be supported by Quine, who reduced epistemology to probabilistic comparisons between theories and, realizing this does not allow for genuine ontology, reduced the latter to "if it's necessary to explain the world, it exists". If category theory can account for all of mathematics just as well as set theory can (this is an ongoing program), what would be the status of sets? If category theory accounted for more, do we stop believing in sets?
I'm a platonist, but this argument is not convincing. Arguments against this from scientific anti-realism are strong as well.

>In medical sciences essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities –– for example assuming that differences in hypertension in Afro American populations are due to racial difference rather than social causes –– leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.[6] In general believing that social identities, such as ethnicity, nationality or gender, are the necessary characteristics of people which define who they are, can lead to dangerous consequences. Essentialist and reductive thinking lies at the core of many discriminatory and extremist ideologies.[7] Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice.[8][9] Older social theories were often guilty of essentialism.[10]
wtf I hate essentialism now

>>17902025
wtf I love essentialism now

>>17898448
Neither, reality has the irreducibly complex structure of particular things of a certain type. There are neither pure particulars or pure universals.

>>17902025
This is a sociological definition of "essentialism" that is just a fancy way of speaking about prejudice and has little to do with what Essentialism means in philosophy. Most Race Realists are actually Nominalists.

>>17902025
>it can lead to muh racism
good
People ARE unequal

>>17902025
>Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice.
Oh no, Plato bros, we got too cocky

>>17904165
It'd be hilarious to me if SJWs ended up doing a 180 and accepting the Aryan origins theory of civilization just to explain why ancient Iranians were racist towards niggers.

>>17904184
ahaha kek

>>17902008
It makes perfect sense. If the scientist wants to find truth in the world he cannot settle for mathematical nominalism. If all triangles are particular what is Pythagorean's theorem actually achieving? I find this argument useful to convince the logical positivist but I know there may be better arguments.

>>17902008
>>You have to deduce something's existence through metaphysics.
deducing existence is the dream of the rationalists. so far they have not been successful at this.

>>17904165
"Never Apologise"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGy28J3Ql1Y

>>17904212
The Pythagorean theorem can be deduced from man-made axioms that aren't necessarily a part of the world. For science there is no need to add on the existence of universals if it adds no explanatory power to scientific theories.
No one is a logical positivist anymore.
>>17904389
It's the task of philosophers.

>>17905120
One cannot use the pythagorean theorem for every triangle if there only exists in the world particular triangles.

>>17904197
>((Schweitzer))

>>17905160
You can, if the particular triangle meets certain criteria. To prove that it applies to any triangle meeting these criteria is a proof following from definitions. Nowhere in this is the notion of a universal needed.

>>17904165
>>17902025
Racial essentialism is rational if you consider only the qualities which are actually essential to each race. For instance, white people have white skin, certain facial traits, a certain genetic makeup, and so on. We can say these are essential to the white race. However racial essentialism becomes irrational when you say things like "blacks are dumb". The quality of "being dumb" and being black have nothing ESSENTIALLY to do with each other, even if they are correlated. There are smart or average people who still fall under the category of black. If dumbness were essential to blackness, one could look at any black person and instantly deduce that they are dumb, but obviously this does not work. Thus racial essentialism of the usual sort, saying things like "blacks are dumb" is irrational. Racial essentialists of this sort essentialise qualities which are only corrolatory. They say because the wall is big the bricks which make it up must also be big.

>>17905545
>"being dumb" and being black have nothing ESSENTIALLY to do with each other
Unfortunately, they do.
Look at (pic) They have a smaller prefrontal cortex, the part which connects the two hemisferes of the brain, i.e. they're dumber.
>There are smart or average people who still fall under the category of black.
Who? Neil DeGrass Tyson? Name me a single famous person with african ascendency, denoted in either phisolophy, music or mathematics, that wasn't influenced by Europeans, Arabs and Indians.

>>17905669
To add to the prefrontal cortex part, quote:
"This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behaviour."

>>17898448
Essentialism, because Ideas Have Consequences

>>17904197
This isn't a Schwietzer quote. It's from The Clansman by Thomas Dixon.

Right-wingers are plagued by misquotations. This is on purpose to make them appear stupid. The left doesn't fall prey to this psyop because no one does it to them, and their beliefs require no provenance. Hegemony serves just fine.

>>17905175
Schweitzer wasn't jewish.
The echo meme uses triple parentheses.

>>17898448
transcendental empiricism

>>17905792
>Triple
((You know who)) has scrapers looking for 3 brackets to collate and use in research papers.

>>17905792
>This isn't a Schwietzer quote.
Proof? It still stands that he didn't see black as equals. I quote:
>Schweitzer was nonetheless still sometimes accused of being paternalistic in his attitude towards Africans. For instance, he thought that Gabonese independence came too early, without adequate education or accommodation to local circumstances.
>Right-wingers are plagued by misquotations.
lol
>The left doesn't fall prey to this psyop
HAHAHAHA Your "sexual revolution" in the 60's was made by the CIA
>Schweitzer wasn't jewish.
I agree, the only reason he (anon) said he was, I think, it's because he married the "daughter of the Jewish pan-Germanist historian Harry Bresslau."

>>17905792
>and their beliefs require no provenance.
Well said
also I don't know why I put in >>17905892
>Your "sexual revolution"
it was simply the sexual revolution of the 60's
~
To add on to what I meant to say in
>Right-wingers are plagued by misquotations.
I'd have to disagree. It's only on 4chan, and it happens rarely

>>17905892
>>17906018
Everyone of his era understood blacks weren't the intellectual equals of whites. Schweitzer wasn't special in this regard.

The way in which that quote is untrue to the spirit of Schweitzer's thought is that he didn't see blacks as *essentially* inferior. Like many missionary do-gooders he thought Christ and a schoolhouse would elevate the Negroes to the intellectual level of whites. This misattributed quote would have been the equivalent of a deathbed confession: a total reversal of his lifelong beliefs. Which is how I knew it was fake when I first saw it ten years ago.

>I'd have to disagree. It's only on 4chan, and it happens rarely
Nonsense. This stuff predates the internet, which has only multiplied it. You will see conservatives passing around misattributed quotes on every platform.

>>17902008
>You can't appeal to epistemology to prove something exists.
?????
Epistemology literally tells you what you can rationally believe in, and ideally, know. So what you're saying is absurd. Of course epistemology should tell you what you can rationally believe in, and thus, take to know, assuming you are right. And that isn't completely separate from metaphysics like you think.
>I'm a platonist, but this argument is not convincing. Arguments against this from scientific anti-realism are strong as well.
I'm a Platonist as well and resent Quine's own too-naturalist reductions but in general, all the metaphysical realists I know support Quinean methodology for doing at least SOME metaphysics. Granted, I don't myself rest my belief that numbers exist on the indispensability argument as Quine puts it, BUT I believe it holds its weight nevertheless. I think there's a much bigger risk for metaphysics thinking you can get by using indispensable entities without ontological commitment. In other words, rejecting the indispensability thesis is far more harmful to metaphysics than accepting it is. That's precisely why people exist who think that your metaphysical intuitions about Platonic entities count for nothing as well.

>>17906055
interesting, I investigated on my own and found out it was made in a publication of a 1981 South African newspaper
>Nonsense
The only afke quote I can think of is a Churchill one that say something along the lines of "the fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists" and it's used by "conservatives" (liberals). Other then that, no, I'm not remembering anything else.
But I also think the Right need to stop using 'appeal to authority' to make a statement.

>>17906304
I have seen quotes misattributed to Lincoln, Washington, Franklin, Voltaire (you know this one) and so on. Too many to name. I should have made a list when I first started noticing them. I didn't realize how widespread the phenomenon is.

>>17906304
> the Right need to stop using 'appeal to authority' to make a statement.
It's also an appeal to tradition and collected knowledge. It's psychologically useful to do. Especially if you're just bolstering an argument you're making that can stand on its own merit in any case. If I were trying to convince you that forigen aid to Africa is pointless, that fake Schwietzer quote could be a peice of historical evidence in my favor. Then my interlocutor points out the quote is fake and comes from racist badthink kkk fiction (regardless of whether it's accurate – it is) and bam. My argument is devastated. I thought I had ammo but my emeny slipped me a dud.

Also, literally every academic does it. Nothing gets published in a journal without a lot of citations attached.

You know what loses arguments very quickly? Listing off logical fallacies. I'm of the opinion that most formal fallacies are just inb4s the Greeks came up with to neuter verbal opponents. They didn't even work that well, as the success of the sophists demonstrates. Formal fallacies are themselves appeals to authority: "ancient greek wise man say your words bad."

Appeal to authority, tu quoque, and so on are good heuristics. Pointing out that there can be exceptions is a weaselly form of discourse.

Thank you for subscribing to my blog.

>>17906586
>I have seen quotes misattributed (...)
Yes, they're all used by the alt-lite. I'll link you a funny vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh80R8o2XlE
>"ancient greek wise man say your words bad."
Yes, this will happen, IF you didn't actually read the greeks (which most people haven't)
>Pointing out that there can be exceptions is a weaselly form of discourse.
Agreed, it gets very hard to explain to someone that patterns are very important
For example:
>Men are more violent.
>>Oh! But there are exceptions!
The pattern here is more important.
It gets tiring

>>17906808
>by the alt-lite
I promise you that the bogus-quote phenomenon precedes the alt-right movement by several decades.

>>17906808
Based Keith Woods.

However, it's not fair to paint Lauren Southern with that brush. Her "Farmlands" documentary exposing White genocide in South Africa is something the alt-lite cannot and will never do. It's why she's a nonperson now.

Basically, if you say the word "White" in a positive or sympathetic way you ain't alt-lite. You ain't conservative. You ain't left. That's the litmus test.

>>17899050
>>17899065
Based