11:34. 'It is not the term that is most significant, but rather the concept we have in mind.' The concept is some pattern in our experience that we find to be significant and we define it and make up a term as a marker. When we want to 'go back to the memory of the experience' we go TERM , DEFINITION, MEMORY to be used now.
'It is pointless to use more explanatory elements when fewer suffices.' Where 'pointless' is an understatement of antipathy. Those superfluous elements undermine reason and are something more that must be validated. 'Do not multiple explanatory entities beyond what is necessary to save appearances, to address the phenomena in question.' KISS ; the comic book version.
Universeals are tools of separation and inclusion. But different people can mean different things when employing the same universal, ie., word. Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities.
Aristotle; motion et. al. as reification. You can see a still object, you can see a moving object. Can you see pure motion? No. Motion is a possible state of an object. Pure motion is a real thing epistemicly not existentially.
Nominalistic sounds bogus. Basically it is against unity of humans. So they made a case for individuality . They do not want collectivist culture . Individuals are easier to fool when they don’t feel they have anything in common
I want to thank you for introducing me to Ocham's connection nominalism.
Great explanation, thanks for this!
11:34. 'It is not the term that is most significant, but rather the concept we have in mind.' The concept is some pattern in our experience that we find to be significant and we define it and make up a term as a marker. When we want to 'go back to the memory of the experience' we go TERM , DEFINITION, MEMORY to be used now.
11:34. Nominalism or concepualism. A great section.
What one regards as an essence depends on the habit of usage and / or one's interest and desire, both of which appear spontaneous.
'It is pointless to use more explanatory elements when fewer suffices.' Where 'pointless' is an understatement of antipathy. Those superfluous elements undermine reason and are something more that must be validated.
'Do not multiple explanatory entities beyond what is necessary to save appearances, to address the phenomena in question.'
KISS ; the comic book version.
8:32 'An individual of any species can be created "afresh", say a picture.
What's the opposite of the principle of parsimony? 'Let's add my favorite orniments to this serviceable wagon. I'll need some help lifting these.'
Universeals are tools of separation and inclusion. But different people can mean different things when employing the same universal, ie., word.
Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities.
Woah, I’m a fan of nominalism .. also, is that you dunking? That’s sweet haha
That's me ... a very long time ago!
Aristotle; motion et. al. as reification.
You can see a still object, you can see a moving object. Can you see pure motion? No. Motion is a possible state of an object. Pure motion is a real thing epistemicly not existentially.
Nominalistic sounds bogus. Basically it is against unity of humans. So they made a case for individuality . They do not want collectivist culture . Individuals are easier to fool when they don’t feel they have anything in common