I'm not sure as to the use of "qualitative" in the above but I do have something related to some of the posts above. lol

v=d/t

This is the well known formula for velocity measured in feet/second or others .The question to be asked:

Which in the above formula is "real" and how can we know it ?

When one considers space(d) and time (t) we really have to comprehend that Man is within space and time. I repeat, the individual man is within space and time.

One sits on one's bed and measures the blanket which is spread out on the bed until one realizes that you are part of or actually the blanket. You can't separate yourself from the blanket even though you might feel independent because you can walk the earth.

Likewise the passage of time is within man who cannot separate himself from this passage even though he believes otherwise.

This leads to this term "objectivity" to which many espouse believing that they can disjoint from what may be the object of out attention. This cannot be with respect to time and space.

The third term, v or velocity is the only one with reality though it has been captured and emasculated by science with meters and seconds. Only velocity is real but the better term is "movement".

We have the observation of movement and especially the sense of inner movement which speaks to the objectification of human cognition. The kinesthetic sense , known to the physiologist, speaks to this movement and consequently speaks to human knowledge, the knowledge of man, in and of himself.

There is also a "sense of balance" which is related to the "sense of movement", both objectified within the realm of knowing. One also relates to the "sense of movement" within the chain of thoughts to which one can relate; all of the nature of "movement".

So what does this reveal ?? The problem with speaking to time and space as realities(feet/second) clouds our consciousness and obfuscates the nature of reality and becomes a barrier to a real scientific comprehension in which the individual considers himself as part of nature and through knowing nature he learns of himself. the polarity is that knowledge of one's self gives evidence of the knowledge of nature.

You can't and shouldn't disassociate yourself as an object of study in scientific endeavors and the v= d/t is the "blocker" to the advancement of the human soul, in knowledge and meaning.

For nominalists, qualitative similarities are nothing but conventions or labels. For realists, they are not conventions; they're real.

I am not sure if I've addressed your question properly here because I don't entirely understand it...
It could be argued that most pre-suppose their existence, even if not fully aware of it.
Not really a decent rule of thumb for philosophy, but for practical sciences, sure.
Yep, I just noted this above. Many pre-suppose their existence, without awareness of it.

"Whoever heard me assert that the grey cat playing just now in the yard is the same one that did jumps and tricks there five hundred years ago will think whatever he likes of me, but it is a stranger form of madness to imagine that the present-day cat is fundamentally a different one." - Schopenhauer on 'catness'.

Bump^

Why not a decent rule of thumb for philosophy? What mechanism does philosophy have to weed out bull**** and masturbation? "That doesn't seem right to me" isn't very objective or reliable. In the sciences, you refer to the real world. What does philosophy have? If it can't built useful models of at least something, it's probably nonsense.

As an example, assuming that more than one philosophical viewpoint is valid allows us to build useful models of the world. Assuming that only one is valid doesn't. Thus we reject the second.

As another example, assuming that the external world exists in some way independent from our mind, allows us to build useful models (it's the foundation of science, theory of mind, all kinds of things). The belief that an external world doesn't exist (solipsism) doesn't allow us to build useful models. Thus we reject the second.

And so on. As a rule of thumb, it seems perfect for advancing philosophy and avoiding its traps.

If only these great minds could be put to thinking about something that actually matters.

Philosophy doesn't need to "advance". Questions answered in philosophy are no longer philosophy (e.g. questions about the sky becoming astronomy; questions about ethics becoming law and politics, questions about knowledge becoming science).

Does the spring come fancier or faster every year? Do we listen to a musical composition only for the finale? Does the dance need a reason?
The dance is the reason.

Tunnel-focus on progress is OK. Awareness of your mortality and the meaninglessness of progress is OK too. Better than OK, is a balance between the two.

Not that I disagree, but what mechanism is there for weeding out philosophical crud? Is philosophy an arena where you can flail impotently for eternity and never be called on it?

Ideas are dangerous. Ask the 100 million+ killed by Marxism and the billion+ whose lives were ruined. Notice the centuries of progress destroyed by the principled avoidance of empiricism. You need some method of choosing between philosophical approaches or you spin your wheels.

Also, humanity as a whole has no known mortality. As a system of ideas and capabilities, progress is like learning or growing up - we become more sophisticated and more powerful. Both of which are creative pursuits - what man is today is nobler and more interesting than a few tribes who live like beasts.

It all depends on what you care about. If you care about yourself and your own pleasure, if that's where your focus is, then you choose something like Marxism and solipsism. You're going to die anyway, and the world doesn't exist without you in it, so what's the point?

Amusingly, ironically, you're giving a utility argument for picking a philosophy.

There's tremendous value in method. There's good value in non-methodical creativity too.

Philosophical crud can be identified quite easily and for the most part it's harmless. Pointing it out is more a reflection of your own insecurities than some genuine desire to help the world.

The crud is only dangerous when in the hands of authority. Philosophy in this case is more often than not, also the solution to that crud.

Likewise, I don't understand the realist position. Do realists think that miles, kilometres, cubits and leagues exist in that they have "'being’ in some eternal and unchanging realm", or do they think that they do not exist?

In other words, what is the realist position on the ontology of units of measurement?

At least, from my understanding ,the "realist" speaks to the idea, or concept, or that region of 'forms' as presented by Plato. the "realist" is the underdog who says that there is more than the measurable.

No doubt, there is a measure to which we perform on a daily basis and as per your question, what is the relationship of meters or seconds or weight in pounds to this world of forms and so forth ?

I can only attempt to answer individually and can't speak for something which might be mistakenly called the "dogma of the realist".

In the thought realm we may believe that what our senses bring to us is the "true reality" and therefore the proper approach of science is to stick with this reality which is measurable.

Again, don't know what a "realist" would say but when we perceive this outer and inner sense bound realities we are only seeing one half of the reality. The other half, through the human thinking, is brought forth through the "concept" which is tied to the perceptive sense reality.

The "true" and the "real' is a combination of both sensory perceptions and the "concepts" or "ideas' which is a more generalized concept. Man is creative as in the sense he sees the world, as a limited being, who in the sensory process cuts off the cosmic happenings by one half and in the creative process of thinking puts the cosmos back together again through the addition of the concept. Clear as mud, I know.

I'm trying again as space and time are concepts to which it is possible to relate to a sensory happening as when we measure our height or deal with the daily measurements of time.

This leads to the idea of 'time" which is a concept which morphs into the presentation of "rhythm". The movements of the sun, moon, planets and even the stars are all ensconced within "rhythms". Just as you and I have the respiratory , cardiac, and other rhythms the rhythms of the planets display their individual movements and these "rhythms" or movements in being are the mother condition of what we call 'time".

I have mentioned this in another thread ; the being of man "floats in time and space". He is "time and space"; the only objective presentation to man is "movement" to which one can scientifically study.

Clear as can be on a mud ridden track, I know , but thanx for asking.

No problem. I want to believe.

I don't believe that realism, insofar as I understand it, is completely absurd. Put some things in order, one after the other, call one of them "zero", and you get integers and number theory. I do not believe it is a convention that order is such a fundamental and powerful concept.

You believe that I won't make useful models of the world if I don't believe that abstractions exist independently of me and of the specific instances that are represented by those abstractions?

Someone bring me my universal triangle! No, not that one. That one is a right triangle, which is not at all a universal triangle.

I'll also need my universal animal when you get a chance. Don't even think of bringing a cat.

Natural units preexist humanity obviously.

The distance between any 2 points is infinitely divisible. However you choose to divide that distance there will be counting/numbers involved. Numbers are universals.

The distance between two particulars (e.g., two separate trees 1000's of km's away) relates them together and can apply to any two particulars, and as such, can also be considered a universal (Kant disagrees here and considers distance/space and the existence of space as entirely dependent on mind).

If it helps let's look at an example discussed in The History of Western Philosophy.

2+2 = 4

In this mathematical example, both 2's are universals. The addition (+) is also a universal but not of the same type. The addition is a relation that relates one universal (2) with another (2). 4 is the sum of the relation between one universal and another. The sum between these two universals will always be 4. The sum is considered 'new knowledge' created from a "relation between universals".

This 'new knowledge' created out of the relation between universals is a special type of knowledge: a priori knowledge.

If we were to instead say that Sue and Sally...added to Bob and Joe makes Sue, Sally, Bob and Joe the 'new knowledge' is the sum: Sue, Sally, Bob and Joe. However, this is new knowledge is empirical knowledge, since it includes particulars (particular people that exist in the world with those names).

Bertrand Russell, amongst many, believes that mathematical knowledge, like all a priori knowledge, is knowledge solely derived by the relations between universals. Empirical knowledge, on the other hand, always requires a particular.

Universals have being independently of the mind, and independently of the physical world/space-time. Particulars exist in the world, in the sense that a tree or a colour or a person exists. As such, universals are said to have being instead, since they do not exist in the same sense as particulars. Since they do not exist in space-time, nor in the mind, they must have being somewhere...? No one knows where.

What we do know about the being of universals is that it is unchanging/eternal. For example: we may not know empirical knowledge about the future, but we can know a priori knowledge about it. We may not know how many people will live in your suburb or city 100 years from now, but we can know that if there are any 2 people who are added to any other 2, that will make 4 people. How we can know this about the future is a question that's puzzled many philosophers, especially Kant. Universals provide the answer.

That reality exists isn't at issue here.

Reality is always the issue. All issues are made by real beings in a real universe.

Plus reality is not what we think it is lol.

Math is not independent of nature. Platonic ideas are pure bs. In order for any thought to exist you had to have nature first. Math requires physics.

Everyone should study a little less Plato and a little more Archimedes.

Right, it's a choice, so units of measurement of distance are conventions, and we probably agree also that miles are more similar to kilometres than cubits are to leagues. This similarity is not a convention, but it is also not a part of an eternal and unchanging realm.

So here is an example of qualitative similarity among conventions, and I don't understand why nominalists are supposed to have a problem with explaining qualitative similarity.

Conventions aren't particulars. The problem of qualitative similarity is that of between the properties of particulars.

Distance between two things is not a property of particulars. Neither are the numbers that represent that distance.

You bring up an interesting point though...with regard to qualitative similarity amongst universals. I'll need to think this over more.

So, by implication, realists think that conventions are not real. They also think that universals are real, and therefore that conventions are not universals...

So if conventions, e.g. units of measurement, are neither universals nor particulars, what are they? Where do they fit in to this debate, if at all?

I disagree strongly. We were stuck in the most absurdly ridiculous philosophical viewpoint for half a millennium at least. Read anything before about 1600, and that's obvious.
Philosophical crud is the most harmful thing there is, and it's not close
I disagree strongly with both of the last two sentences.

Firstly, crud is far more dangerous in the hands of the populace, because the populace creates and maintains the authority. The love of Putin is as much of a reflection of the independent views and philosophies and morals of the average Russian as it is a reflection of his efforts at creating a personality cult. Take Mao as another example - the people who went to war in the communistic revolution which then destroyed that country, had no authority, in fact they fought authority; they individually believed in the inherent evil of capitalism and that led them to do violent acts en masse to bring their moral philosophy into being.

Which brings me to your last sentence. Philosophy did not cure these people. The superiority of capitalism over communism, both morally and practically, is self evident with a little thought experiment. It is not a difficult philosophical or empirical problem. Yet capitalism only won because of empiricism and might; philosophy won over precisely no one in these countries. In fact, it was philosophy that led them to their false beliefs in the first place, and philosophy that maintained them; abstraction of moral principles then taken to their logical conclusion, while not realizing the (much harder to grasp) practical counterpoints and moral counterpoints. Philosophy created an intellectual utopia in their minds, superior to all other practical and moral considerations, unfettered by reality, where details were swept away. Philosophical crud is more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

Anyway, this is off topic, and it's your thread, so I won't say more.

I cant see how you implied that from my comments throughout.

I am unsure if the qualitative similarity between the properties of universals, such as two different units of measurement, are real to realists. I have not read anything about this question. I would presume yes however, since qualitative similiraties between properties of particulars are considered real.

A unit of measurement, no matter how large or small, is real to realists, for it is a universal, just like the number/s and sets that represent that unit.

Among particulars? There exist systems of measurement, e.g. of length.

Inferred. (Sorry.)

As Locke argued, you and I could argue forever about the redness of an apple, what he referred to as its secondary quality. But we can't argue over its primary qualities (mass, density etc.) without one of us being wrong.

I think that is an advancement in philosophy, in that what you are describing as a problem, may not really be, or at least I can't see one.

edit - The problem of realism vs idealism still remains but it's being viewed and described in an less interesting way here.

And so, you can "see" color but cannot "see" mass and density as Locke defines them and ergo the mass and density are primary and the color secondary ?

Ergo, according to Locke, our sense of sight,in this case,is delusional whereas we still use our senses to "weigh" a mass or possibly "touch" an object to "measure" in some way.

If one attempts to clarify the thoughts of Locke one denies the sense realm and only lives within the "concept", for careful consideration reveals that both mass, weight and the primary space are concepts without reference to our senses.

This is the inexorable miasma of "disassociating" the human being from scientific activity ; the living only within one's "head" but not offering a primary relationship of this "head activity" and our sense activity, in this case sight vis a vis color.

At best, Locke cannot comprehend "color" with his preconditions and in this he ends with a dismissal of our sight bound reality.