Bertrand Russell says in Problems of Philosophy that universals don't exist, but subsist. It is a distinction which I don't think is intelligible in the modern lexicon, because 'to exist' only has one meaning - there is no scope for a different kind of existence that might pertain to universals. Universality is not an existing thing, but neither is it a mere name - it is the form that the particular must take in order to exist.
they can be rendered as existing the way all existing things can, as 'validly knowable' that does little however to get you out of the problem, in your case: if the universal is the form taken by the particular, then since all other particulars are non-that-particular, they cannot be applicable to that universal.
@@quixodian Buddhist philosophy has important point in this. Buddhists are staunch Nominalists..they said Universals are just " convenient designator" ( a la Nagasena) which " disappears after analysis "( according to Vasubandhu)...this is negative thesis of them in this Problem of Universal...Their positive thesis is more interesting...Dignaga expounded theory of "Apoha" which means Universals such as " Book" ( which as such is just convenient description of aggregation of pages) can be explained by Double negation Non -Non-Book..
@@pratapmandal1046 no, apoha ie. sautrantika buddhists onwards are not like nominalists at all. its easy to make that mistake because the words are similar.
The problem (then and now) is that this aspect of philosophy is mired in language and therefore self-referential. In this respect (as practiced) philosophy does not seem to have the convenience of a computer spreadsheet's circular reference warning. ps Technology has enlarged the universe so what does "universal" even mean anymore? ...(CIRC) nb Trigger was a horse, a fictional one at that.
it means that you will either die or not today, yet this data point of either 100% occurring or 0% occurring generates information when part of a collection of similar data points, to the extent it guarantees income for insurance companies with mathematical precision, and is central to entire fields of science. more technology just means more data and faster computation, it does nothing to resolve that you yourself exist as both a) 100/0 as a particular and b) as a precise avg/generality/universal, at the same time.
Si. Si. Si. La mujer de 72 desabrigada en ciudad Washington, que dormia en el aeropuerto, fue arrestado por trespass en inglés y se murió en la cárcel un poco después. No entiendo porque los migrantes quieren ir allá.
Best philosophy podcast!!!
@HavocMEDIA247 Peter Adamson ≠ Philosophy Overdose
Peter Adamson’s History of Philosophy without Gaps is awesome
Bertrand Russell says in Problems of Philosophy that universals don't exist, but subsist. It is a distinction which I don't think is intelligible in the modern lexicon, because 'to exist' only has one meaning - there is no scope for a different kind of existence that might pertain to universals. Universality is not an existing thing, but neither is it a mere name - it is the form that the particular must take in order to exist.
they can be rendered as existing the way all existing things can, as 'validly knowable'
that does little however to get you out of the problem, in your case:
if the universal is the form taken by the particular, then since all other particulars are non-that-particular, they cannot be applicable to that universal.
Thank you. 🙏 I would reply, but this is not the medium for such an abstruse debate.@@5piles
@@quixodian
Buddhist philosophy has important point in this. Buddhists are staunch Nominalists..they said Universals are just " convenient designator" ( a la Nagasena) which " disappears after analysis "( according to Vasubandhu)...this is negative thesis of them in this Problem of Universal...Their positive thesis is more interesting...Dignaga expounded theory of "Apoha" which means Universals such as " Book" ( which as such is just convenient description of aggregation of pages) can be explained by Double negation Non -Non-Book..
@@5piles
Nominalism is most suitable I think. Buddhists are
like this..Universals are " convenient designation" as per our contextual utility
@@pratapmandal1046 no, apoha ie. sautrantika buddhists onwards are not like nominalists at all. its easy to make that mistake because the words are similar.
What is the name of the picture? Can it be found on the internet?
Yes, it's called the flammarion engraving
Thanks lifecode!
They always are
Thks & also;
I don't get those horribe/scam CZcams ads on you channel.
I assume you have something to do with that.
If-so, thank-you oh so-much.
Thank you ...
Induction
Deduction
Will never get back
Wittgenstein would have sided with Abelard, I think.
The problem (then and now) is that this aspect of philosophy is mired in language and therefore self-referential. In this respect (as practiced) philosophy does not seem to have the convenience of a computer spreadsheet's circular reference warning. ps Technology has enlarged the universe so what does "universal" even mean anymore? ...(CIRC) nb Trigger was a horse, a fictional one at that.
it means that you will either die or not today, yet this data point of either 100% occurring or 0% occurring generates information when part of a collection of similar data points, to the extent it guarantees income for insurance companies with mathematical precision, and is central to entire fields of science.
more technology just means more data and faster computation, it does nothing to resolve that you yourself exist as both a) 100/0 as a particular and b) as a precise avg/generality/universal, at the same time.
👏🙂
Only a sith deals in absolutes. When noting is certain, anything is possible.
Si. Si. Si. La mujer de 72 desabrigada en ciudad Washington, que dormia en el aeropuerto, fue arrestado por trespass en inglés y se murió en la cárcel un poco después. No entiendo porque los migrantes quieren ir allá.