<p>Nominalist or realist? (or other?)</p>
<p>Nominalist - 1
Realist - 0</p>
<p>Maybe some explicit term-defining would be of good order here.</p>
<p>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))</p>
<p>Sorry if my explanation is rambly. Wiki probably explains it better.</p>
<p>I guess I’ll go with nominalist.</p>
<p>Nominalist - 2
Realist - 0</p>
<p>i lean toward nominalism as well</p>
<p>I’d say realist, simply because I’ve always been taken in with the argument of ‘is my red your red’</p>
<p>Of course, there is a significant chance that I completely interpreted the definitions wrong and now look like a complete fool.</p>