Nominalism vs Realism and Metaphysics of René Guénon

[WanderingLands]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

[Ginkgo]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

Interesting for sure.

I always like to look at this type of discussion in terms of, "what shall we call it?" versus "what is it?". Plato's realism could be looked at in terms of "what is it?" In other words, when we look at any object such as a tree, we want to know what it actually is. There must be something more(non-physical) to the tree than just it's physical appearance. There also must be some essential feature that all trees share that is universal and unchanging.

Nominalism on the other hand, just sticks labels on things. If there is a tree then the question becomes, "what shall we call it?" e.g. Oak,Pine,Baobab etc, The physical tree is all that exists and there is nothing essential and non-physical contained within or about trees that exists in some far off tree netherworld. This is the starting for science as is at odds with Platonic realism because different question reveal different answers. This conflict is increased when Plato claims that this netherworld (for the want of a better expression) is more real than the physical world. So 'tree-ness' itself is more real than the actual Oaks and Pine trees.

What I found interesting is that Guenon does a nominalism when he tries to draw a distinction between the scientific establishment and the scientific method. Doing a nominalism is always had to avoid when we express a certainty about "what is it?" These types of statements always end up being, "I know for certain what it is" As Kant would probably say, "Well actually you don't"

[WanderingLands]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

Interesting for sure.

I always like to look at this type of discussion in terms of, "what shall we call it?" versus "what is it?". Plato's realism could be looked at in terms of "what is it?" In other words, when we look at any object such as a tree, we want to know what it actually is. There must be something more(non-physical) to the tree than just it's physical appearance. There also must be some essential feature that all trees share that is universal and unchanging.

Nominalism on the other hand, just sticks labels on things. If there is a tree then the question becomes, "what shall we call it?" e.g. Oak,Pine,Baobab etc, The physical tree is all that exists and there is nothing essential and non-physical contained within or about trees that exists in some far off tree netherworld. This is the starting for science as is at odds with Platonic realism because different question reveal different answers. This conflict is increased when Plato claims that this netherworld (for the want of a better expression) is more real than the physical world. So 'tree-ness' itself is more real than the actual Oaks and Pine trees.

What I found interesting is that Guenon does a nominalism when he tries to draw a distinction between the scientific establishment and the scientific method. Doing a nominalism is always had to avoid when we express a certainty about "what is it?" These types of statements always end up being, "I know for certain what it is" As Kant would probably say, "Well actually you don't"

Let's expand on that example of the trees. You make a good point on how Nominalists use labels on things, yet they don't really seem to know why, or have a justification of it, as they do not care for the actual quality of it. It's a contradiction that Nominalists, Materialists, Positivists, etc. make, because if there is no "intrinsic value" (using the term the guy in the video was making) for a label of something, then why even describe it or give it a name? This is very bad metaphysics and ontology, derived from a very stifling epistemology that has plagued the scientific establishment for a long time.

[Ginkgo]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

Interesting for sure.

I always like to look at this type of discussion in terms of, "what shall we call it?" versus "what is it?". Plato's realism could be looked at in terms of "what is it?" In other words, when we look at any object such as a tree, we want to know what it actually is. There must be something more(non-physical) to the tree than just it's physical appearance. There also must be some essential feature that all trees share that is universal and unchanging.

Nominalism on the other hand, just sticks labels on things. If there is a tree then the question becomes, "what shall we call it?" e.g. Oak,Pine,Baobab etc, The physical tree is all that exists and there is nothing essential and non-physical contained within or about trees that exists in some far off tree netherworld. This is the starting for science as is at odds with Platonic realism because different question reveal different answers. This conflict is increased when Plato claims that this netherworld (for the want of a better expression) is more real than the physical world. So 'tree-ness' itself is more real than the actual Oaks and Pine trees.

What I found interesting is that Guenon does a nominalism when he tries to draw a distinction between the scientific establishment and the scientific method. Doing a nominalism is always had to avoid when we express a certainty about "what is it?" These types of statements always end up being, "I know for certain what it is" As Kant would probably say, "Well actually you don't"

Let's expand on that example of the trees. You make a good point on how Nominalists use labels on things, yet they don't really seem to know why, or have a justification of it, as they do not care for the actual quality of it. It's a contradiction that Nominalists, Materialists, Positivists, etc. make, because if there is no "intrinsic value" (using the term the guy in the video was making) for a label of something, then why even describe it or give it a name? This is very bad metaphysics and ontology, derived from a very stifling epistemology that has plagued the scientific establishment for a long time.

Yes, I guess it is pretty much what science ignore that makes it so successful.As you say, scientific instrumentalism doesn't really care for the ontological status of objects. It worries about how good its predictions are rather than address any questions about deeper realities.

It is a good thing it does otherwise we wouldn't be communicating via computers.

[WanderingLands]

Yes, I guess it is pretty much what science ignore that makes it so successful.As you say, scientific instrumentalism doesn't really care for the ontological status of objects. It worries about how good its predictions are rather than address any questions about deeper realities.

It is a good thing it does otherwise we wouldn't be communicating via computers.

Too bad that the current scientific paradigm doesn't enable for advanced technology like communication to be taken to a much deeper level. Either that, or as many conspiracy theorists say, the scientific paradigm works in conjunction with the government to keep the inventions in secret. For instance, I found some real bizarre inventions that I've never heard of at the U.S Patent Office website, and it never seemed to have been brought to the mainstream public before. I uploaded some of my findings onto Scribd.

Scribd - U.S. Patents: http://www.scribd.com/collections/4421056/U-S-Patents

[HexHammer]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

What a bunch of complete garbage!

[WanderingLands]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

What a bunch of complete garbage!

Garbage? Why do you think that it's garbage?

[HexHammer]

I'm watching a video discussing nominalism vs realism (as in that of Platonic realism). Real good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnJCFZPQw4

What a bunch of complete garbage!

Garbage? Why do you think that it's garbage?

LOL?
He dwell in outdated stuff that any reasonable intelligent person would dismiss.

He says we'r together only by chance, that is disregarding genetic memory that makes humans form bonds, and due to genetic memory we will have elaborate behaviour steerd by our subconciousness.

What he says disregards basic human studies, it's compelte nonsens and babble.

Only extremely stupid people would give it any credit.

[WanderingLands]

LOL?
He dwell in outdated stuff that any reasonable intelligent person would dismiss.

He says we'r together only by chance, that is disregarding genetic memory that makes humans form bonds, and due to genetic memory we will have elaborate behaviour steerd by our subconciousness.

What he says disregards basic human studies, it's compelte nonsens and babble.

Only extremely stupid people would give it any credit.

What? I don't think he said anything of humans "being together by chance", so I don't think you've been watching the video. The video was talking about Nominalism and Platonic realism, and seeing that the guy in the video was an Orthodox priest and a proponent of Platonic realism and Rene Guenon (as opposed to Nominalism), it's very doubtable that we're together "by chance". I think you need to watch the video more closely.

[HexHammer]

To answer your question jump to 3 min mark:

3:00 there is no community, there is no solidarity, these things are accidental.

8:58 science is relative, never fundamental. Science can talk about 2ndayr issues and questions, is incapable to deal with primary issues and questions. That is logic..

These are just 2 random highlights of his babbeling, it's pure demagogery that utterly naive people believe in, it's tragic that good rethorics can seduce weakminded people, it was the same trick GW Bush used to lure everybody into the highly illegal Iraq war.

[WanderingLands]

To answer your question jump to 3 min mark:

3:00 there is no community, there is no solidarity, these things are accidental.

8:58 science is relative, never fundamental. Science can talk about 2ndayr issues and questions, is incapable to deal with primary issues and questions. That is logic..

These are just 2 random highlights of his babbeling, it's pure demagogery that utterly naive people believe in, it's tragic that good rethorics can seduce weakminded people, it was the same trick GW Bush used to lure everybody into the highly illegal Iraq war.

I believe he wasn't saying them in support of these ideas; he was just highlighting the ideas of Nominalism.

[HexHammer]

I believe he wasn't saying them in support of these ideas; he was just highlighting the ideas of Nominalism.

If you want to believe in his blatant nonsens, then go ahead, I won't stop you.

[WanderingLands]

If you want to believe in his blatant nonsens, then go ahead, I won't stop you.

I don't know what to say, since you didn't really look at his thesis on Platonic realism and Rene Guenon and decided to take the guy's words about Nominalism out of context.

[HexHammer]

If you want to believe in his blatant nonsens, then go ahead, I won't stop you.

I don't know what to say, since you didn't really look at his thesis on Platonic realism and Rene Guenon and decided to take the guy's words about Nominalism out of context.

It isn't out of context, everything he's saying is nonsens and babble, only you create a false meaningful sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnT2FcuZaYI

You are a groupthinker, and like the dude in the experiment you conform with pure nonsens.

[WanderingLands]

It isn't out of context, everything he's saying is nonsens and babble, only you create a false meaningful sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnT2FcuZaYI

You are a groupthinker, and like the dude in the experiment you conform with pure nonsens.

My friend, how is Platonic realism and metaphysics nonsense? Do you not think that there's anything in this existence as ever being meaningful?