Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community polls, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

The Problem of Universals

JakorJakor Posts: 914Registered User Member
edited December 2008 in College Confidential Cafe
Nominalist or realist? (or other?)

Nominalist - 1
Realist - 0
Post edited by Jakor on

Replies to: The Problem of Universals

  • JBVirtuosoJBVirtuoso Posts: 4,579Registered User Senior Member
    Maybe some explicit term-defining would be of good order here.
  • JakorJakor Posts: 914Registered User Member
    Nominalist- rejects the idea of universals (individual cases and particular exhibitionism of some trait may exist, but the trait cannot be tangibly defined by a universal definition; partially because universals are often relative (hot vs. cold, for example) and are defined upon a spectrum)
    Realist- accepts the idea of universals (universals are real and are the entities which one describes (eg. classification of objects))

    Sorry if my explanation is rambly. Wiki probably explains it better.
  • JBVirtuosoJBVirtuoso Posts: 4,579Registered User Senior Member
    I guess I'll go with nominalist.

    Nominalist - 2
    Realist - 0
  • Russell7Russell7 Posts: 1,414- Senior Member
    i lean toward nominalism as well
  • secretchordssecretchords Posts: 72Registered User Junior Member
    I'd say realist, simply because I've always been taken in with the argument of 'is my red your red'

    Of course, there is a significant chance that I completely interpreted the definitions wrong and now look like a complete fool.
Sign In or Register to comment.