Your mission tonight is all about thinking on your feet. I gave you only a very little bit of information in class today about this nominalism theory. Based on what you know, try to think of a creative objection to it. There's more than one possibility. (If you're having a hard time, here's one possible hint: courage. Here's another: five. Don't say I never gave you anything. :-)
basically, this theory that concepts and ideals are fake and that physical objects are the only things that arn't real. for alot of physical objects,(e.i. pillows, pancakes, tables, nests, pretty much everything built by living things) the concept and the ideal form of it came before the physical object. Without the concept, there wouldn't be a physical form of it, proving that there is an ideal of everything
ReplyDeleteI unfortunately left my notebook at school, so I don't have the definition you gave us. I hope I'm getting the basic concept right...If only physical things are real than what about concepts such a justice, freedom, or happiness? Those things are abstract, but it's hard to deny their existence. Or numbers, are they only real when talking about an object (i.e. two horses) don't numbers exist separately, yet they're not physical things.
ReplyDeleteOne problem with the definition is that it says that all abstract ideas relate back to physical objects. But what about concepts like love or fear or jealousy, there are no physical objects that accuretly describe them, yet they still exist, even if only in our minds.
ReplyDeleteAnother objection to this theory of nominalism may be gravity. although gravity is not physical per say it is hard to argue the fact that gravity is non existant
ReplyDeleteLike Chris said, a problem with nominalism is that it is difficult to associate physical objects with emotions and ideas. Although objects or actions may be created to express something like anger, there is no item that I can think of that someone can look at and immediately say, "That's anger."
ReplyDeleteAs eeryone one else has mentioned, how does this theory work when you're not talking about actual physical things? What about love? There is no object that is love. Or a mile? A mile a unit of measurement not an object.
ReplyDeleteAs some people have gotten to i aslo agree that nominalism is saying taht things are only name an not actual objects but there thatone flaw of emotions that you can put an object in place for, so im not exactly sure how this wrks out.
ReplyDeleteAND NOW...in a shameless attempt to win the medalion I submit the counter argument( yes I Know I may be disproving my above argument by saying this) that emotions are in fact physical objects. (hint: they are really small) When you feel the hair stand up on the back of your neck, what causes this? Most people would agree that this is caused by fear. When you are facing a risky or frightening situation, and you understand the possible consequences, but you go ahead and do it anyway, this would be the result of you being courageous. In short these emotions are what dictate your behavior in a certain situation. Never forget that everything that goes on in your head(and every part of your body for that matter) happens physicaly. The various thoughts you are thinking right now are in fact electrical signals traveling from one neuron to the next. If my hasty reasurch on the subject is correct these signals are referred to as neurotransmiters. One type of neurotransmiter is called a hormone. There are many different types of hormones, which do many different things, and some are related to emotions, eg. Norepinephrine, Epinephrine, Serotonin etc. As I talked about earlier, I define emotions as, the things which cause the reactions/behaviors we associate with them (fear causes hairs to rise, etc. etc.) The same definition can be given to these hormones, therefore I would argue that hormones are not the cause of the emotions, but the emotions themselves. If people make the assumption, as many do, that the definition of emotion places it in some magical, non-existent realm, then of course this argument is moot, but if we can suspend our belief a little bit, i think this argument many actually make sense. (Congratulations!! you made it to the end of my super long post! you have now proven yourself to be a masochist for putting yourself through that horrible expirience by your own free will.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the other posts, how can this theory be true if it is not representing any emotions? Which are real things.
ReplyDeleteI think that naming abstract concepts can be difficult. A child raised by wolves and never taught a language would have a very difficult time understanding theses ideas. They would probably understand that tree means a tree but how could they be taught the meaning of emotions or numbers.
ReplyDelete