[Inquiry] Re: Question On Realism

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

QOR.  Note 2

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

What are the properties of naive vs. nuanced nominalism and relativism?

We might begin our analysis of naively nominal thinking in this manner:

The nominal revolt typically arises in times when the air is so clouded
with automomous abstractions that no one can tell which of them, if any,
are grounded in reality.  At those times, the recognition that concepts
are just symbols, contingent on and instrumental to human craft, can be
the result of a healthy impulse to return to solid ground, and so there
is little hope of impressing the iconoclast nominal thinker with a plea
for realism.  They assume the gods of realism are already on their side.
The initial insight that general terms are mere names, which could lead
on to wisdom if pursued with persistence, becomes perverted in a couple
of ways:  (1) falling prey to the misconceit that we have total control
over living concepts, thinking that "the world is whatever we say it is,
so long as we all keep our stories straight" (coherentism).  This might
remind us a little of certain misunderstandings of evolution:  the fact
that adaptations arise by mutation does not mean that their survival is
a matter of caprice.  (2) failing to appreciate that an individual term
is also a mere name, and so there is no more basis for reality residing
in individuals than there was in generals.  Believing there is solidity
to be found at the level of individuals is a variety of foundationalism.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o