Published on 12, July, 2020
So, there are some good brains on here. I'm wondering, then, where people stand on the 'Realism/Nominalism' arguments that are the two most distinguished positions in Western metaphysics. A recent difference of opinion I had with someone over appearance and reality has gotten me thinking about where I stand on these things.
Briefly, Realists (the most famous of whom are Plato and Aristotle) postulate the existence of two kinds of entities: particulars and universals. Particulars resemble each other because they share universals. So, for example, each particular elephant has four legs, two ears, a trunk and a tail. Universals can also resemble each other by sharing other universals. So, wisdom and kindness resemble each other because they are both virtues. Realism can also explain our uses of abstract concepts, such as qualities or conditions: death, poverty, colour, etc.
Nominalists, on the other hand, say that there is no such thing as a universal - no abstract concepts - but only particulars. The world is made up of particulars, and the universals are things of our own making, stemming from the way we think about the world, or from the language we use. Thus, if there are only particulars, there can be no such thing as death, ill-health, virtue, or gender. There are, instead, human conventions that tend to group objects or ideas into categories (something we, as autistics, all know about!) Kindness, for example, exists only because we say it does. And potatoes only exist as a particular type of vegetable because we have categorised a group of particular vegetables in a particular way.
F Scott Fitzgerald once said that the sign of a first-rate intelligence was the ability to hold two conflicting thoughts in the head at the same time, yet still be able to function. He was using it in another context, but it may well be applicable here. Whilst I'd certainly be the last to claim to have a first-rate intelligence, I am nevertheless prepared to accept that my thoughts on certain things may contradict what I perceive, or what I understand intuitively. Essentially, I'm a Realist. I believe in abstracts and universals. I believe that people suffer from ill-health, that poverty exists, that people have a propensity for kindness, and that people die. But then we come to things like gender - male and female - and sexuality. How fixed are these things? Someone may appear to be male in terms of physical characteristics. Yet they may identify as female. And are all heterosexuals heterosexual? Is sexuality actually a more fluid thing? Isn't 'pansexuality' a more accurate way to describe each of us? I identify as heterosexual, but I'm also aware that there are certain males I know and see in the media whom I feel a sexual attraction for. You could argue it's because they are more feminine in appearance - but that's not always the case. Maybe the first rule of attraction is that there are no rules of attraction!
So... as Walt Whitman said... 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, then. I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes.' I'm not as large as Walt was in any sense - but I agree with this standpoint.
I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks about these things. I'm dropping my previous guard (which may simply be a form of ego-protection, stemming from a lifetime of struggling to defend myself in all sorts of ways) and am open to all thoughts on the subject...
I can’t really understand what you’re talking about Tom, although I’m truly grateful for the conversation starter. When I try to understand what you’re saying, it’s like my brain starts scattering and I can’t grasp ideas long enough to make any sense of them. So I don’t know what I am, one or the other, or maybe neither ~ I think you’re talking about opposing views or philosophies on life or something. I do apologise, it’s not how you’ve written it, I just don’t understand a lot of the words and I therefore can’t make any understanding of it.
This is my understanding on life, if this is what you’re talking about. I know I have life, because I’m alive, and I know I have thoughts, so something within me has life and it has thoughts. A brain, disconnected from the rest of the body has neither life nor thoughts, so I know my life and my thoughts don’t come from my brain. I also know that other people have life and thoughts. I also know that for every effect, there has to be a cause. Like the law of gravity, we live in a world of cause and effect. An apple tree doesn’t suddenly appear in the meadow, somebody or something, planted a seed. The soil didn’t care what seed was planted in him, or her, she simply did her thing so the seed could mature into an apple tree. I know the tree has life, because it’s growing, but I know it doesn’t have conscious thought, he doesn’t have the ability to chose. He is what he is, he can’t suddenly decide or chose to be a tulip. The seed was the cause and the apple tree the effect. I know that animals too have life but they don’t have the same faculty of conscious thought, the way that humans have. Why do humans have thought? How do these thoughts operate? Where do they go after we have thought them and how do they come back? What power do they have? Why do only humans have them? Where does inspiration come from?
Only you can answer these questions and therefore know your mind but there are many great teachers, past and present, who can help along the journey of self discovery. But they can only point the way. You have to walk the path.
Many years ago, the Buddha used to point the way to the truth, through nightly talks. One day a man approached him at a talk his was giving in India. He said he had been coming to these talks for years now and still, he sees little improvement in his life, or at least, not the improvements he was hoping to see. He said he has seen many people come and go over the years, some of them with magnificent success’s and some with moderate, but him, who faithfully attended the talks every night, saw little improvement.
The Buddha asked him where he was from, knowing he was not from the present region. The man told him where he was from and described to the Buddha how he would travel to and from his home town, travelling many miles and days. He described the journey superbly. The Buddha asked if his friends knew how to get to his hometown, and the man answered, but certainly they know. So the Buddha said that they must have been there many times and the man said no, not ever. Yet, the Buddha pointed out, even though they knew the way, they understood it etc, they never experienced the benefit of his hometown because they never actually went there. Actually, I haven’t told the story correctly, but that was the gist. Nobody can teach you anything or give you anything, you have to walk the journey by yourself. The man used to listen to the great talks every night, great words of wisdom coming from this man, yet he didn’t experience the benefit because he didn’t walk the path, he merely listened and understood the journey, he had not walked it, therefore he didn’t receive the benefits.
But there are a number of universal laws that are at play, such as the law of electricity, gravity and the law of cause and effect. It has been shown to us that everything in the universe has a precise cause and a precise effect. Who would you be without your thoughts? We all have the answers to these questions inside of us, we all know the truth. If somebody is ‘poor’ why is he poor? Is it because of some external condition, if so, then all men or women of his age, living in the same area, subject to the same conditions, would be poor, and that’s not true. Why can one man make millions in America during the Great Depression when other men went hungry? Was it because of something outside of them or something inside? What makes one man keep his sanity and his inherent love of mankind or of life, during his time as a prisoner at the concentration camp, and another man lose his mind?