/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14057640]

Universals do not exist in any meaningful sense. They are an abstract mechanism used to help categorize, but this categorization is nothing more than further abstract construction with no actual ties to reality (i.e. it correlates but does not constitute identity).

Human Nature is not a metaphysical property or identity. It is a linguistic/rational tool to help summarize entities which underwent similar evolutionary processes, thus attaining some level of isomorphism.

I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.14057655]

>>14057640
That might be the most reddit image I've ever seen in my life.

[Anonymous No.14057658]

>>14057640

Absolute cringe

[Anonymous No.14057672]

>>14057640
cringe but redpilled

[Anonymous No.14057676]

>>14057640
Its called nominalism

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14057708]

>>14057655
>I found it!

[Anonymous No.14057761]

>>14057640
>he hasn’t taken a course or read a textbook on statistical mechanics or photonics

Ummm sorry sweetie but one of the conclusions of modern science is that universals exist. Nice image though faggot

[Anonymous No.14057782]

>>14057708
God is living in your head rent free, butters, or so it seems. The anon did not even mention him and yet it was him who you saw.

[Anonymous No.14057785]

>>14057640
>imagine being the pathetic IFUCKINGLOVESCIENCE retard who made that shitty pic

[Anonymous No.14057787]

Read Sartre, bitch.

[Anonymous No.14057806]

universals don't, but qualia do

[Anonymous No.14057830]

>>14057640
Do you think this is also true of physics categories, like solid/liquid/gas, proton/neutron/electron, hydrogen/helium/lithium, gravitational/electromagnetic/nuclear, conductive/convective/radiative...? Do you further believe that numbers and equations, and the whole underpinning of mathematical physics, are likewise all in our heads?

[Anonymous No.14057831]

>>14057640
Would you say our categorization is arbitrary, then? For example, we categorize the universal "Blue" as all the particular shades to which the label has been given to. In the end, we amass a collection of shades, all of which are in the category of "Blue". They are not red, nor green, nor any other color. Would you say this is merely a human organizational classification, involving the generalization of many empirical shades the eye perceived as similar, with no such thing as a perfectly Blue category?

[Anonymous No.14057861]

Nominalism = Reality unobserved by a mind
Conceptualism = Reality observed by a mind
Realism = Reality reflected by a mind

[Anonymous No.14057972]

To answer you, OP, study nominalism. Now on to the image which is more interesting than your post.

Where do you even start with something so blatantly ignorant? It's impossible to discern what the justifications for these analogies even are, or what the deeper meaning intended to be communicated possibly could be. All that can be gleaned from this work is "WORD 1 PARENT. WORD 2 & 3 BAD. WORD 4 GOOD."

In a manner of speaking, it's an effective form of argument because the nonsensical analogies act as a smoke screen, hiding the logic behind each of the propositions. I have to wonder if this might be an intentional function, whether to appeal to a less thought-inclined reader who only searches for surface meaning, or if it's consciously recognized as a property that works to the defense of the propositions at hand.

No matter what the reasoning, the author's argument about dialectics is flawed on a dialectical level. The use of "science" is the most immediately egregious, as it is also the word the author is trying to convince the reader as the most "right". The conflation of "science" with "empiricism" from the outset leaves a sour taste in my mouth, as it's become clear that the author clearly has no idea what they're talking about. I understand it's merely a millennial colloquialism, and that this is a silly meme and not a serious dissertation, but why should I even entertain the opinions of someone who cannot even propose an opinion (in an obnoxious, nonsensical way) without speaking about it like they're trying to get elementary school kids interested in the empirical method of research?

Secondly, equating metaphysics to the study of the hypothetical abstract by the same name reinforced this notion that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. Metaphysics is the basis upon which all science is built, it's the precursor to understanding the world around us. This metaphysics is the self-referential dialogue that empiricism requires to study reality, without it there is no hypothesis to test, or analysis of observations.

These two points are severe enough that I believe this meme needs a rewrite. And I have done so, while retaining the "science" colloquialism to acknowledge I am being a bit pedantic. Discuss.

[Anonymous No.14058025]

>>14057831
Yes, because different languages and cultures sometimes have categorized colors differently. Off the top of my head, cyan is not considered in the set of blues, it is considered it's own unique color category.

A small fun fact to go along with this: it was discovered that this seperation decreased the time it took for a Russian to name the color. Despite you knowing the word "cyan", the fact that you consider it a shade of blue (or blue-green) rather than it's own color, is enough to introduce considerable cognitive delay in identifying it.

[Anonymous No.14058049]

Maybe you could clarify what you mean when you use the word "universals" or "actual reality". I don't know if I disagree with you or not, because I'm not sure what the claim is

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14058197]

>>14057972
>pic
Laaaaame

[Anonymous No.14058231]

>>14058049
I guess it's what >>14057972 >>14057676 said: Nominalism

>Nominalism: the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Important in medieval scholastic thought, nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam.

[Anonymous No.14058279]

>>14057640
>muh nominalism
Stare at two patches of the same shade and tell me in what sense are they "the same"? Is it contingent psychology? Is it contingent linguistic convention? Is it some mysterious metaphysical "similarity" relation? Or is it because they're actually identical despite being located in different places? The right answer is the fourth one, and the other three are different anti-universals views. Let me ask you this OP. Are you really going to say it's linguistic convention that the seven dwarves and the seven days of the week are both "seven"? You really think there's no mind-independent in-the-world commonality that we would just always pick out, no matter what language we adopted? Are you going to say it's just contingent psychology? That if our brains were wired different, those two might not seem the same after all? Are you that stupid anon? I hope not. Those are crazy views, way crazier than accepting the existence of universals. So it comes down to view 3 and view 4. Why exactly is multilocation crazier than stipulating some ad hoc "similarity" relation for the sole purpose of avoiding universals? I'm not asking that you believe in everything Plato thinks is a universal, but if you look at sensory qualities and number, it's hard to say there aren't universals at play when the alternative views are absolutely inane.

[Anonymous No.14058322]

>>14057640
Correct and correct. FP Ramsey has a great essay debunking the concept of Universals. Anything described as human nature is inherently the naturalistic fallacy. Both of these conclusions can be achieved with no real introspection and just by looking at how the words are set up. Good philosophizing. Keep it up

[Anonymous No.14058372]

>>14058197
What was your intention of replying to my effortpost with a shitpost?

Was it to purposefully cultivate ill-will, knowingly reducing the degree to which you can post freely on this board without being met with snark and vitriol more than you already do?

Is it to try and lower the standard of discussion of potentially good threads, out of some spirit of malice driven by feelings of:
>If I can't post on this board without being shitposted at NO ONE CAN

Or have you been so driven down by a board that's rejected you harshly that you are reduced posting like this is /v/ - video games?

What drives the pathology of the butterfly?

[Anonymous No.14058401]

>Universals do not exist in any meaningful sense

every time you compare two like things, you are invoking a universal. universals are not fucking mystical constellations. they are completely empty mental entities that make language possible. to say they are only used to help categorized is basically to deny the very possibility of meaningful linguistic expression itself. without universals, we have nothing. as kant said, objects without concepts are blind, concepts without objects are meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14058405]

>>14057708
What if you were just a bot programmed by an incel to make men hate women more, perhaps then you would be more agreeable.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14058422]

>>14058372
Fine effort post. I was only addressing the picture with the jeer. No offense intended.
You didn’t shop it, did you?

[Anonymous No.14058440]

I attended a seminar on philosophy recently. The entire discussion was consumed with how the philosopher's ideas related to other philosophers' ideas - his influences, what he was attempting to say, how it all fit together with what was going on at the time in philosophy.

Nobody ever discussed whether or not any useful conclusions had been drawn or whether his ideas were leading towards or pointing in the direction of useful conclusions. There was no critical analysis of the utility of the discussion that was being had, either. It was like everyone just assumed that what they were doing in the room had value, and that what the philosopher did had value.

But I think that if challenged, they would have eventually been forced to concede that it wasn't about whether their discussion about the philosopher or the philosopher's ideas had some kind of utility, but was instead about discussing the ideas themselves. They'd probably have been satisfied with that answer, but I wouldn't have been.

I guess that's why I get paid by other people and they get paid by the government.

[Anonymous No.14058504]

>>14058422
I MS Painted it, of course.

[Anonymous No.14058731]

>>14057640
who the fuck cares? *smokes crack*

[Anonymous No.14058781]

>>14057972
Now this is autism

[Anonymous No.14058820]

>>14057785
not a single american or anyone from the anglosphere on the left while all the ones on the right are american or from the anglosphere.
really makes you think about what capitalizing of everything does to the human soul

[Anonymous No.14058879]

>>14057972
>Theology is transcendental ontology.
Noice.

[Anonymous No.14058913]

>>14057640
You've been btfo for all eternity by Husserl and Hilbert 100 years ago.
An object and its existence are defined logically and ontologically. Only by adding arbitrary special metaphysical requirements can you make spurious distinction between 'authentic' objects and others. For instance by demanding it takes the form of sensory experience.

[Anonymous No.14058926]

You're totally right, unironically.
Time to read the Neoplatonists.