7

Yes, a nominalist logician can do so, and even preserve classical logic and while denying existence of both abstract objects and universals. What gives? A nominalist changes the standard semantics instead, how truth values are assigned to predicates and quantifiers. Traditional assignment formalized by Tarski in 1936 requires a universe of objects with ...


6

I need to know that a universal law like the First Law Of Motion may be disproved or not. I mean, that how can we make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe? 'Disproving' means showing that something is not true. The name for showing that a law will hold true at all places and times 'proving'. Many philosophers would say ...


6

What is a maxim? Jens Timmermann argues in his not translated book "Sittengesetz und Freiheit" (DeGruyter, 2003), Chapter IV, that there are at least three different senses in which Kant uses the term "maxim". The one important for the question is neither what could be called "basic principle", nor what could be called "...


6

Aristotle in the Politics wrote about the nature of money, and his views remained highly influential at least until the end of the 19th century. According to Aristotle the purpose (telos) of money is threefold: Money is essential for trade because of the inefficiency of barter. The primary purpose of money is therefore as a medium of exchange. Money is a ...


5

I don't think there is a problem for nominalists here. I take nominalism to be the view that there are only individuals or particulars - concrete things or signs of concrete things, particular objects, states and events in space/time. My own death is, or will be, an individual event in space/time. What it will not be is an instance of a universal, namely ...


5

It is natural to use it, both aim at the problem of vagueness in predicates. The Sorites paradox is as ancient as the Liar, and much more pervasive, as a list of nicknames suggests: paradox of the heap, paradox of the beard, continuum fallacy, line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, etc. One grain is not a heap, adding a grain to not a heap does not make it ...


3

We can't "make sure that the particular law will hold true at all places of the universe", and it is not possible to do so without deity-like omniscience. Proof belongs to the domain of logic and mathematics, where there can be no question of the accuracy of a given abstraction, because the subjects are the manipulation of abstractions. But the example ...


3

All people, nominalist as well as realists, can believe in: One day, I will die. Or more general, they can believe in: One day in his future, each living being will die. That's the most simple hypothesis about our future. No case is known which contradicts the hypothesis. Instead billions of cases from experience support the hypothesis. In addition, ...


3

It's not self predication by itself that causes trouble here. By self predication alone, the form of beauty, for example, can be beautiful (thus partake of itself) and all will be fine. The trouble is that according to Plato's theory of forms a form must be distinct from the things which partake of it, and so it cannot partake of itself (see here). (Note ...


3

Mr. Jensen, the problem of universals is usually a heavily obfuscated issue. So, pardon me if my post gets too long because it, since the problem of universals cannot be encountered, without clearing up a few more issues. We have on one side the contradiction between e.g. the general or abstract “(being) yellow” vs “yellow things”. Most people would ...


2

Consider unemployment and its caus(es): one stated simple cause might be that poverty in general is responsible, and a counter-position is that every person has the ability to find employment and prosperity. Here we have an abstract concept (within a causal relationship) opposed to properties in all individuals (considered in the example). Would you accept ...


2

C. S. Peirce* defines nominalism vs. realism (which I think you mean by "universalist") very well (CP 1.27 fn): It must not be imagined that any notable realist of the thirteenth or fourteenth century took the ground that any “universal” was what we in English should call a “thing,” as it seems that, in an earlier age, some realists and some ...


2

Mark Balguer's Platonism and Anti-Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics is considered a critical text arguing that the ontology of mathematical objects is an open question such that there are perhaps equally good arguments on both sides for mutually exclusive positions.


2

The characteristic that sets money apart from other goods is that it is accepted and offered as a medium of exchange. Other properties of money, like being a store of value or medium of deferred payments, are a consequence of money's use a medium of exchange. You store some of your assets as money so you can easily exchange it in the short term. There are ...


2

Like all terms in philosophy, these have different senses in different contexts and between different philosophers. I think actually the common contrasts are between singular and general and between universal and individual or particular. A singular term is one that refers to just one object : e.g. 'the Great Pyramid', 'the Eiffel Tower', 'the tallest ...


2

Of course they can be disproved. That is why they are called theoretical. Or perhaps I should not say disproved but rather appended. You use the first law of motion as an example, and that example is logical, but there must be some other way to calculate motion and it’s effects. But so far no one has exhausted themselves to look beyond what is offered as law....


2

The short answer is that we cannot be 100% certain for all cases. We can be more certain for the "frames" where we can do experiments, but the further off we go from actual experiments it gets less and less certain. We know for certain that Newtons laws are false by doing experiments proving them false. Generally, it is much easier to find one example ...


2

This is a big question, and drives at the heart of one of the major unresolved issues in Western philosophy. It is also a multi-part question, which makes it difficult to answer fully. One part -- the categories of philosophies/philosophers -- is not answerable validly. While a significant fraction of philosophers will admit to being part of a "school&...


2

Ignoring the logical analysis of a statement or a proposition with all its predicates and qualifiers, natural language with universal concept seems the only way to communicate some epistemological ideas corresponding to some perceived truth with fellow people. Since this may be the only possible way, I don't see any controversy to make use of universals in ...


1

Building off of @Conifold 's comment, here is a list of SEP articles which seem to contain contemporary off-shoots of the original "Problem of Universals". If anyone has a suggestion to add to the list, that would be awesome! Abstract Objects Types and Tokens Tropes Nominalism in Metaphysics Platonism in Metaphysics Properties Objects Ontic ...


1

First, while an individual exists, his main priority is to survive, otherwise there's no possibility of performing no other act of lesser priority. Any other priority is secondary. If one wants to be a doctor, go to the cinema or get sex, one first needs to be alive. Second, any system of behavioral regulation, like morals, ethics, law, religion, etc. is ...


1

Technically speaking, a class or category is defined by a set of criteria, not by a set of particulars. 'Catness' is not a property in its own right; it is a collection of properties that we have associated with the concept 'cat' such that any particular creature which shares those properties will be classed as a cat. That is why such concepts are called ...


1

This is an ill-posed question. When you refer to infinity ("an infinite number of causes or effects"), you are implying accountability, and that's not a physical fact, but a fact related with our human subjectivity. If you touch a rock pebble with your finger, the pebble moves. But the pebble is not moving due to a single physical action (for example, one ...


1

See English transl of Lives, Book VII (Stoics), 54 : "The standard of truth they declare to be the apprehending presentation, i.e. that which comes from a real object – according to Chrysippus in the twelfth book of his Physics [...] while Chrysippus in the first book of his Exposition of Doctrine contradicts himself and declares that sensation and ...


1

A Monetary system is an information system that acts as an accounting system to track who created value and who is due value. Money acts as the data. You can think of a Monetary system as a physical implementation of a spreadsheet. Instead of having rows that list everyone's name and a column that lists how much value they created (in numbers), we ourselves ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible