 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Three Laws of Logic | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/14/2008 8:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | | from wikipedia:
The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines nominalism as "the doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names." Nominalism has also been defined as a philosophical position that various objects labeled by the same term have nothing in common but their name. [1] Nominalism is the view that only actual physical particulars are real, and that universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to particular things (Feibleman 1962).
To that I would say:
1) abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names.
False-a concept is more than a name. "Jeff" is a name, not a concept.
2) Nominalism has also been defined as a philosophical position that various objects labeled by the same term have nothing in common but their name.
False-they have attributes in common or they are similar in being different from other things in specific ways.
3) Nominalism is the view that only actual physical particulars are real, and that universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to particular things (Feibleman 1962).
False-Spiritual particulars are real, too. But universals may not actually exist as real beings. Maybe concepts and names are not existing entities; maybe it is more proper to say that we abstract and name (and remember what we conceived and named ) in the verb sense, only.
Contemporary philosophical realism, also referred to as metaphysical realism, is the belief in a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Philosophers who profess realism also typically believe that truth consists in a belief's correspondence to reality.
I don't see much of a problem with the above, per se.
Are these accurate definitions of realism and nominalism?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/14/2008 8:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
HumanHypostasis said...
... if realism and nominalism are both consistently biblical/Christian positions, how does the Church construct an understanding of ‘omniscience’ that’s compatible with both?.
Sheepishly: Somehow I doubt that it the task of the Church.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/15/2008 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Jeff. A good reminder.
Corey, I don't think this is exactly the same debate we had a while back (you, Jeff, and I) about whether God infinitely contemplates all possible worlds. But I think it's a bit related. That is, the universals that Jeff described are best explained, I think, as existing in some mind. If not that, what else?
I agree, I think, that universals don't have to be 'thought through' in 'propositional' form by God, especially if God's knowledge isn't discursive. God can think in propositional terms IF he wants to I suppose, but I don't know that all theories of universals agree that universals are linguisitc entities that can only be known in propositional terms. Not even Plato (I don't think) conceived of universals as "linguisitc entitiees."
At the same time, I can't say that when God creates there's zero conceptual content to his intenstions or to his command, for example, that X come into existence. Some manner of conception has to define God's willing creation into being. So God 'intends' X, and not Y, to come into existence when he says, "Let there be X." Doesn't that seem to be behind Genesis? If God says, "Let there be light..." God's conceived of SOMETHING (viz., 'light') prior to it's existing concretely and actually. That's all I mean. It may not be linguisitc. I don't know. But what else is it if not 'conceptual'? When God says "Let there be light" surely God conceives and intends something to come into existence. If so, that something he conceives (a) defines what comes into existence (by delimiting it, informing it, etc.), and (b) exists independent of what comes into existence.
Yes? No? Tom
Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 2/15/2008 2:27:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/21/2008 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't think the regress is infinite though, Corey. Isn't it demonstrably the case that we can and DO conceive of acting before we act? Don't artists conceive of a particular composition and THEN paint it? They do. So there must not be a necessary infinite regress involved in preconceiving our actions and/or the goals they aim at. Otherwise, 'intending' the creation of any 'possible' world would be an impossibility for God. There would be no possibility per se.
So do you think there's for God ANY meaningful conceiving (apprehension, envisioning) of the objects he creates independent of the actual existence of those objects? If so, then doesn't it follow that the existence of those actual objects (once created) 'answer to' God's preconceived and ongoing intentions for them? If so, doesn't that entail some version of realism? T
Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 2/21/2008 10:20:17 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/22/2008 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: So do you think there's for God ANY meaningful conceiving (apprehension, envisioning) of the objects he creates independent of the actual existence of those objects?
Corey: What I'm wanting to say is that ALL of God's knowledge is immediate. Sans creation, what God knows is Godself, and all the potential inherent therein. Without reflection (which I believe easily leads to infinite regress problems, either going forward or backward) he knows his capacity for creation, he knows the sort of world he would/could make. He cannot create any world which is incompatible with him, and doesn't need to mentally conceive those worlds in order to reject them. In fact, such reflection may be impossible, like trying to conceive square triangles.
Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.Post Edited (Corey) : 2/22/2008 8:57:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 56 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:44 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|