INTJs and Realism vs. Nominalism

**sriv** · 03-20-2008, 05:08 PM

I wonder how my fellow INTJs feel about the extremely controversial viewpoints of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. There have been highly respectable people from both sides and it is a fierce debate.

Which side are you guys on? I myself am a pure realist both scientific and philosophical.

**vkut79** · 03-20-2008, 10:26 PM

Are you talking about medieval realism vs. nominalism, in regards to the existence of absolutes?

Modern realism isn't necessarily incompatible with nominalism. According to modern realism, we can have an approximate understanding of how objective reality is - we can have true knowledge that corresponds to objective reality. This is the perspective of science. Nominalism basically states that absolute categories are just names, that there isn't actually "greeness" that exists somewhere in objective reality. I believe in both modern realism and nominalism. I believe that we can achieve an approximate understanding or knowledge of how objective reality is through the methods of science. However, because we achieve this approximate understanding through a human perspective, we categorize aspects of reality in terms of absolutes (such as the color green) that do no actually exist per se in objective reality. We can accept that these absolutes don't actually exist in objective reality - we merely use them in thinking about reality, which we can only know approximately.

**sriv** · 03-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Thats a good point. Do you think that we should catagorize colors as the greatest frequencies of light that are not absorbed by an object, so it is a more objective perspective?

**vkut79** · 03-21-2008, 08:58 PM

I think the important and meaningful concepts are those that enable to us to better understand and predict reality. Color certainly helps us interpret patterns in the physical world around us, so it is meaningful. Its hard to find a firm basis for arguing whether or not something is "objectively real" or not, in my opinion, because all we know about reality is seen through a human perspective that does not necessarily provide us with a picture of how objective reality really is. So rather we shouldn't try to figure out what is objective real or not, as it is hard to define and justify exactly what it means for something to be objectively real, but we should deduce and develop concepts that enable us to interact more successfully with the immediate reality of our experience. We shouldn't trap ourselves in a game of philosophical language, unless it is entertaining.

03-20-2008, 05:08 PM	#1
sriv Member [46%] MBTI: IxTJ Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,865	I wonder how my fellow INTJs feel about the extremely controversial viewpoints of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . There have been highly respectable people from both sides and it is a fierce debate. Which side are you guys on? I myself am a pure realist both scientific and philosophical.
sriv is offline post a comment

03-20-2008, 10:26 PM	#2
vkut79 Member [09%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 365	Are you talking about medieval realism vs. nominalism, in regards to the existence of absolutes? Modern realism isn't necessarily incompatible with nominalism. According to modern realism, we can have an approximate understanding of how objective reality is - we can have true knowledge that corresponds to objective reality. This is the perspective of science. Nominalism basically states that absolute categories are just names, that there isn't actually "greeness" that exists somewhere in objective reality. I believe in both modern realism and nominalism. I believe that we can achieve an approximate understanding or knowledge of how objective reality is through the methods of science. However, because we achieve this approximate understanding through a human perspective, we categorize aspects of reality in terms of absolutes (such as the color green) that do no actually exist per se in objective reality. We can accept that these absolutes don't actually exist in objective reality - we merely use them in thinking about reality, which we can only know approximately.
vkut79 is offline post a comment

03-21-2008, 02:40 PM	#3
sriv Member [46%] MBTI: IxTJ Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,865	Thats a good point. Do you think that we should catagorize colors as the greatest frequencies of light that are not absorbed by an object, so it is a more objective perspective?
sriv is offline post a comment

03-21-2008, 08:58 PM	#4
vkut79 Member [09%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 365	I think the important and meaningful concepts are those that enable to us to better understand and predict reality. Color certainly helps us interpret patterns in the physical world around us, so it is meaningful. Its hard to find a firm basis for arguing whether or not something is "objectively real" or not, in my opinion, because all we know about reality is seen through a human perspective that does not necessarily provide us with a picture of how objective reality really is. So rather we shouldn't try to figure out what is objective real or not, as it is hard to define and justify exactly what it means for something to be objectively real, but we should deduce and develop concepts that enable us to interact more successfully with the immediate reality of our experience. We shouldn't trap ourselves in a game of philosophical language, unless it is entertaining.
vkut79 is offline post a comment