According to the entry "Metaphysics" writen by Inwagen,War and Peace is a universal,It appers in every printedmatters of War and Peace. So in nominalists' opinion it comes out that our talking of War and Peace has no reference. And nominalists seem always to use the way of rewriting to deal with it. But it sure is not the way we used the word"War and Peace"(In ordinary language,we use it to refer to the very universal,or a generation).Hence it's a kind of revisionary metaphysics nominalism.

And if treating the word "War and Peace" in our ordinary way — and thus it has no reference in nominalists' opinion,how do they deal with the problem that we use the word "War and Peace" to reason (e.g. p,p->q,q and p refers to a non-existing thing)?(a little like Frege-Geach Problem)

And nominalism seems to make all the things scientific theories talk about none-existing. Of course, nominalism can rewrite scientific theories into the form "every specific atom...", but isn't it "every specific atom" or "specific atom" (i.e. all involving "natural class") a universal(given that atom is a natural kind)?

  • Nominalism is older as philosophy: "war" is a name denoting a collection of things grouped together by our mind: different individual events that looks the same. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 17 at 13:01
  • Is the "same" or "Similar" a universa? – AnduinWilde Jan 22 at 5:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.