Quote: Nominalism 16 Feb 201216 Feb 2012 Nominalism has often been misunderstood in the past, perhaps because of the associations of the word itself. Properly conceived, nominalism has nothing to do with names. It is, quite precisely, the thesis that everything which exists is an individual, and is moreover an individual in itself, and not merely as a result of any metaphysical process by which something originally non-individual is made individual through the agency of a principle of individuation. The distinction between nominalists and realists is therefore quite sharp. Particular philosophers may be difficult to classify as nominalists or realists, either because they are muddled, inconsistent, vague or deliberately evasive, or else because they simply had no views on the question; nevertheless one cannot properly be a semi-nominalist, a moderate nominalist or an ultra-nominalist. The metaphysics involved in the dispute between nominalists and realists is certainly difficult and may well appear obscure—most nominalists are indeed likely to deny that their opponents’ position can even be coherently formulated. The consequences of nominalism on the other hand are clear enough. For a nominalist the world contains only individuals, and nothing else. [Milton, John R. 1981. The Origin and Development of the Concept of the ‘Laws of Nature’. Archives européennes de sociologie 22:173-195. Citation and paper courtesy of Charles Wolfe] Note that “realism” once meant the notion that universals and abstractions exist, are real. We now call this Platonism, after it changed at one point in the 17th century: Blackmore, John. 1979. On the inverted use of the terms ‘realism’ and ‘idealism’ among scientists and historians of science. British Journal for the History of Science 30:125-134. History Logic and philosophy Metaphysics Philosophy Quotes
Accommodationism Accommodating Science: the backfire effect, and conclusion 10 Mar 201411 Mar 2014 [This is the final section of the book. I will return to the section on neurobiology and religion later.] The backfire effect If science is to be communicated to the wider community in a way that will change how people think, then it would seem an obvious idea to look… Read More
Ecology and Biodiversity The ontology of biology 3 – phenomena 14 Nov 200818 Sep 2017 As I have argued before, there is a class of objects in the biological domain that do not derive from the theory of that domain, but which are in fact the special objects of the domain that call for a theoretical explanation. The example I have given is mountain, which… Read More
Administrative Crowdsourcing – online database in WordPress 28 Sep 201128 Sep 2011 Hi everyone. I have an idea: to set up a database of aphorisms by philosophers to which everyone can contribute, but which I will approve before it shows, and which everyone can search. Each record must include the bibliographical details and be by a recognised philosopher or historically important source… Read More
I have a hot date with an Anglo Saxon ecclesiastical cow at the moment. So I will remain vague and evasive until we have spent some quality time with each other down on the farm. Its a rather different set up from hard bastard son of even harder bastard just down the road and I have once again surprised myself with my own stupidity at having missed it.
I don’t seem to agree with Plato or Aristotle but I don’t know much about how philosophical argument has evolved or how selection has shaped philosophical differences and for me that’s a massive issue I do not have the time or cultural inclination to resolve in philosophical terms. Plato, Aristotle, cows, Fred’s, Gerald’s, Domnal Brecc’s head or the ravens who gnawed it. What we study has to be a matter of selection due to the choices we have to make when we enter the academic jungle. That’s going to make differences but they are perfectly natural and understandable. So Cows or philosophical dispute, I am always going to go with the cow. But what I learn from it tells me a lot about the nature of dispute. When I get the chance to sit down at the end of the day and reflect while eating my banana it’s selection I think about wither I am dealing with a Fred a Plato or a cow. This is an argument that some early medieval historians use when looking at difference and dispute between history and archaeology. I am a product of my environment.
I’m still a little lost here. Is my pancreas an individual? Where does one draw the line between individuals. Is an oxygen atom an individual? If so, when it combines with another oxygen atom to make an ozone molecule do we say that two individuals have ceased to exist and that another is born?
On some nominalistic accounts your pancreas is an individual (it is not a universal, after all – you don’t use a shared or ideal pancreas), and that is also true of the molecules it comprises. What counts as an individual depends what is being counted and differentiated, but whatever you are counting, if it can be counted, it is an individual on the nominalist account. Note: “Individual” does not mean “organism”, “person” or “system” necessarily in metaphysics. Another term for it is “particular”.