/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15450994]

Universals/essences do not exist in any meaningful sense. They are an abstract linguistic mechanism used to help categorize, but this categorization is nothing more than further abstract linguistic construction with no actual ties to fundamental reality (i.e. it correlates but does not constitute identity). Exhaustive explanations of things are contained in the reports of physics. The identity of something is material, not metaphysical. Metaphysics is simply modernity's myth-making apparatus.

Human Nature (and other natures such as Feminine, Masculine, etc) are not a metaphysical properties, identities, or substances. They are linguistic/rational tools to help summarize entities which underwent similar evolutionary processes, thus attaining some level of isomorphism. There is no "Nature" in the sense that there is mass or gravity. It is a social-construct through and through.

I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. What is your understanding of a "nature"?

[Anonymous No.15451012]

OP here. Please be nice in your response, i'm trans and had surgery just a few days ago, so I'm not cut out for undue stress.
Thanks for understanding!

[Anonymous No.15451610]

>>15450994
>born to mate for slave auctions

why live?

[Anonymous No.15451724]

>>15451012
next time you see a thread you don't understand but vaguely intuit it btfo's your facile beliefs, just pass it by.
this isn't /pol/.

>>15451610
yeah the modern day slave markets of wagie-cages and onlyfans profiles are far less aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.15451743]

>>15451610
>>born to mate
haha freudian slip there friendy :)

[Anonymous No.15451759]

>>15450994
>What is your understanding of a "nature"?
Habit and repetition

[Anonymous No.15451774]

Life is a dream, it's better to just accept it for what it is.

[Anonymous No.15451807]

Your entire post would be meaningless without universals/essences. I don't believe these universals to have independent existence but depend on matter, but is not matter itself.

[Anonymous No.15451836]

>>15450994
A car is an invention, but it's a constrained creation. Math, or logic, can be seen as inventions, however constrained by reality. What we do when we create a language is we simply create associations for things that exist. Even a dragon as a construct requires pre-existing elements. Logic can be seen as the process in which a construct is consistently built. The potentials in reality follow a rule of consistency that separate them from impossible potentials. Any question of 'why' this is the case already presupposes a reason, any attempt to defy reason already presupposes defiance by inconsistency. In order for any description or perception of complex material reality to take place, there needs to be non-material abstract, simpler, elements.

[Anonymous No.15451843]

>>15450994
>The identity of something is material, not metaphysical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
What do you think of this?

[Anonymous No.15452008]

>>15451836
Who told you that bro?

[Anonymous No.15452063]

>>15451843
I think the concept "Ship of Theseus" is a tool that correlates to the physical structure of the ship. It is our abstraction from that physical reality and exists only insofar as we maintain itself meaningful status of relation. So whereas if we were to cease existing the physical reality of what we designate "Theseus' Ship" would remain, however, the idea of "Theusus' Ship" would vanish.

As each part is replaced, the newly introduced part is assimilated into this relational network and is adapted to the concept "Theseus' Ship" thereby maintaining the correlation. The whole point is "Theseus' Ship" as a concept is not some kind of form that acts upon the material and "informs" it (a la Thomistic hylemorphism) nor is it a preexistent Eidos of which the material ship is a shadow,( Platonism/Idealism). Instead it is just the linguistic mechanism by which we categorize a physical, essence-less, strucutre whose reality will only be penetrated via the modus operandi of physics.

[Anonymous No.15452073]

>>15452063
>nor is it a preexistent Eidos of which the material ship is a shadow,( Platonism/Idealism)

confirmed for meme reading of Plato. dude essences are just abstractions based on similitude but I still can't account for what that similitude itself is based on without presupposing the conceptual demarcations I am trying to explain... lmao

[Anonymous No.15452080]

>>15451743
they wrote a sentence, how is that a freudian slip

[Anonymous No.15452083]

>>15452073

[Anonymous No.15452085]

>>15452083
have some gold kind stranger

[Anonymous No.15452224]

>>15450994
Sorry for evading your question. Nothing that would help anyway because you are better learned. What do you think of the Boltzmann brain argument?

[Anonymous No.15452312]

>>15450994
You can never truly know or think outside the limits of your mental framework, so you can never say what the limits of that framework are, because you can't step outside of it. So it's impossible to determine if universals/essences exist as mere formal products of your mental framework (here "abstract linguistic mechanism") or exist outside of it.

I take a pragmatic approach to universals/essences; I simply treat them as symbolic of a vaguely apprehended reality outside the limits of our formal intelligence. A symbol mere points in the direction of the reality; it does not pretend to encompass its formal properties as though it were knowable or thinkable.

You are clearly very smart. Good luck with surgery!

[Anonymous No.15452544]

>>15452224
Don't know much about it other than it reminded me of Davidson's Swampman in how the effort expended on it wasn't worth the returns. From what I remember it's a mess of a lot of things. Misunderstanding statistical models, the significance of statistics, all further compounded by the cornucopia of cosmological theories that were being floated at the time. Cosmology is still being wrested from pop-sci pandemonium. 'It's disturbing to see that there's a new theory everytime there's a new observation.'

>>15452312
>I take a pragmatic approach to universals/essences; I simply treat them as symbolic of a vaguely apprehended reality outside the limits of our formal intelligence.
Would this be an immaterial or material reality for you? You admit we are apprehending it. What non-symbolic mechanism does encompass formal properties for you?

I agree there is a pragmatic reason to not detonate essences/universals completely. And this leads me to seek their causal status. For instance, whatever the "nature" of mass, mass has a definite causal status.

[Anonymous No.15452596]

>>15450994
Not sure I entirely understand what you're saying. Are you saying a priori truths cannot be synthetic?

[Anonymous No.15452623]

> Exhaustive explanations of things are contained in the reports of physics.

Physics has no explanation for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15452725]

>>15452596
I just realized how clumsy the first sentence of my op is.

I mean there is no metaphysical reality from which physical objects derive their continuity and the idea of "essence" as the fulcrum by which things exist is false. One rock and another rock do not share an essence or nature beyond that which is assigned to them by us through our use of language which generates an abstraction that is utilized for formal categorization. But rock A and rock B are in reality separate entities which do not share the property of a nature of rock. They are simply physical objects whose development has led to a similarity which we assign a conventional significance to.

>>15452623
It depends on what your starting point is. I'm interested what is your explanation for consciousness?

The issue of consciousness is definitely haunting the outskirts of this issue. One of the reasons why I'm so keen on it.

[Anonymous No.15452966]

>>15452073
>but I still can't account for what that similitude itself is based on without presupposing the conceptual demarcations I am trying to explain
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15452984]

>>15452623
Consciousness is a product of the brain and therefore material.

[Anonymous No.15453032]

TELL ME HOW THE FUCK CAN A BODY BE SELF-CONVERTIVE. HOW CAN IT CONVERT TO ITSELF? HOW CAN BODIES BE SELF-MOVED? HOW CAN ALL THINGS PARTAKE OF ONENESS AND STILL BE ONE AND NOT-ONE?

[Anonymous No.15453069]

Gay and troonpilled. The essences and universals are located in the collective unconscious, right by society, and gender roles, and distant from sex and instinct.

[Anonymous No.15453087]

>>15453032
>self-convertive
Explain please
>self-moved
How is a car self-moved? How is an AI self-moved?
>HOW CAN ALL THINGS PARTAKE OF ONENESS AND STILL BE ONE AND NOT-ONE?
Same way red can partake of colour but not be the same as colour. You are one (an individual) and not One (the concept). Of course these issues are purely linguistic and does not concern reality.

[Anonymous No.15453103]

>>15451012
Transsexualism is an essentialist concept.

[Anonymous No.15453109]

>>15453069
>The essences and universals are located in the collective unconscious.
the Logos is all logoi and all logoi are the Logos.

>>15453087
>How is a car self-moved?
that is my point, it isn't.

Also, all things are one, how are they conditioned by oneness and still be not one itself?

[Anonymous No.15453119]

>>15453109
Reductionist cretin.

[Anonymous No.15453130]

>>15453119
Do you have any actual argument? I need to go to bed.