Quote:
Originally Posted by drowkcableps
I see. To realists relationships are synonymous with universals (this had to be hammered in, as I am not naturally a realist) but to nominalists, the mind cannot be separated from the reality wherein the mind operates.
Arguing beside each other?
There's a lightbulb moment to be had perhaps, in understanding universals.
It comes from questioning the existence of resemblance/difference; of questioning -
where does resemblance/difference exist?
Human bodies exist
in the objective world, as objects in the world - in the same sense as a tree, a rock or apple.
Opinions exist
in the subjective world, in the same sense as beliefs and emotions. If you want to be difficult you might instead classify opinions as existing objectively (materialists) - but it really doesn't matter; it's one or the other at the least.
What about resemblance/difference? What about - in addition to, in subtraction to, to the left of, to the right of, similar to, different to?
Do these exist in the objective world? in the subjective world?
Closer consideration of these questions will lead to the conclusion that they neither exist solely in the subjective world, nor solely in the objective world.
Without humans (/without the subjective), stars and planets are still different to each other. We know this, because their interactions give birth to our solar system and to us - the difference between stars and planets pre-dates the subjective. Therefore, resemblance/difference does not exist solely in the subjective. Yet in the same vein, resemblance/difference does not exist as an object in the world (/objectively) - in the same sense as a tree, a rock or human body.
So where does it exist then? if not subjectively or objectively?
Universals are all things like this.
Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 08-02-2019 at 03:32 AM.