Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 4:02 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 5:18 pm
Q: What are truth, knowledge, justice, goodness, identity, and so on? (Insert the philosophical question of choice.)
A: Well, they're not physical things. So they must be non-physical or abstract things. So there are non-physical or abstract things. QED. I know, let's call them concepts.
Q: And where are those non-physical or abstract things?
A: Well, they have no physical (spatial and temporal) location. So they must be in a non-physical or abstract location. Ah, it must be the mind.
Q: And where is the mind?
A: Well, it has no physical (spatial and temporal) location. So it must be in a non-physical or abstract location, such as the mind.
C: So non-physical or abstract things exist in the mind, which is a non-physical or abstract thing that exists in the mind, which is a non-physical or abstract thing. And so on.
Stroll on.
Yes. But. 'The concept of justice could indicate some dualist thing, but justice itself seems rather mental to me. I certainly don't know where it is or what it's made of. Which, again, does not mean I am saying this demonstrates dualism or pluralism of substance. But it sure seems to be referring to something mental. Which may then actually be physical, but I sure don't want to talk about justice in physical terms, for the most part.'
Suggestion. Abstract nouns are not names of things of any kind, physical or non-physical. So they're not names of things that can be described or analysed. And so-called philosophical problems vanish on the instant.
What is your final point?
Are you saying 'abstract nouns' are empty fictions, falsehood or they are not real in terms of Physicalism?
Are you saying we should not use them at all since they are fictitious?
Are you saying 'abstract nouns' are like the idea of God and that we should believe in them.
Are you saying, whatever is relevant to humanity is only Physicalism:
but note:
From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
So, even physicalism cannot meet your expectations because it deals with abstract concepts.
Even Science deal with abstract concepts:
[generally accepted]
So, your claim "Concepts are empty fictions??" is very intellectually and philosophical immature.
As usual that is your own first-person opinions, beliefs and judgments, if not, show references to support your view.
You merely rehearse the dogma - the orthodoxy - that I'm questioning. Here are my points.
1 Pending evidence for their existence, belief that abstract or non-physical things exist is irrational. And in this, abstract or non-physical things are remarkably like supernatural things, which is why they are the supernaturalist trojan horse.
You are not giving consideration to the Principle of Charity despite my detailed explanations.
There are many perspectives in dealing with the question of physical [matter of fact] vs abstract, non-physical, universals 'things'.
First, I [you as well?] do not agree with Platonic realism and its mind-independent forms, universal and abstract things.
I understand your position that abstract things do not exist because they are not absolutely independent of the human conditions.
There are two sense of reality, i.e.
1. The FSERC contingent with human conditions sense
2. The philosophical realism -absolutely independent of human conditions.
But I have been contending that your 'what exists as real, physical' is based on philosophical realism [i.e. absolute human independence] is grounded on an
illusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
From "1. The FSERC contingent with human conditions sense" belief that abstract or non-physical things exist
is rational because it is objective can be verified and justified with empirical evidences.
For example, abstract and non-physical nouns linked to human psychology are verifiable and justifiable by science, e.g. human emotions which are supported by its physical neural correlates.
I have given the examples of currencies, sovereign or crypto which are very real, i.e. verifiable and justifiable from its use and practicality.
2 Abstract nouns are not names of things of any kind, physical or non-physical. So they're not names of things that can be described or analysed. Instead, all we can do is explain how we do or could use abstract nouns, their cognates and related words, in the different contexts in which we do or could use them.
Nah, it is only claimed not to be things of any kind when considered within
philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence] which is grounded on an
illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am
Somehow you have a cognitive deficit in understanding [not agree with] the above to offer any counter to it.
You prefer to be a philosophical ostrich to them.
It is that abstract nouns has their cognates, related words and use, but rather they have their relative emerged and realized reality within their specific framework and system [FSERC].
[quorw]3 For millennia, western philosophers have laboured under the delusion that abstract nouns are names of things that can be described or analysed - part of the fundamental delusion of mistaking what we say for the way things are. Hence the lack of philosophical progress - we're still asking the same questions - western philosophy has been 'a commentary on Plato'.
[/quote]
I have already we are not arguing with reference to Plato - which is obviously illusory.
What you are ignorant is you are talking about yourself in the above,
i.e. you have labored under the delusion that what you defined as absolutely human independent real and factual things are absolutely-real.
As I had argued this ideology of absolutely human independent realness is driven by an evolutionary default which you have clung to as an ideology compelled by primal
evolutionary forces.
Those who opposed ideological philosophical realism [anti-philosophical_realism] has realized its limitation and thus philosophize beyond its fundamental of absolute human independence to tap on its potential of higher utilities for humanity.
This is why you as a moral relativists tolerate genocides on moral grounds in respecting the moral wishes of different moral groups [to each their own].