New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

BCP1928 · Monday at 5:37 PM

Fervent said:
Your question is a distraction.

It is a fundamental (and unresolved) question of mereology.

Fervent said:
If there is no objective meaning to it, then any communication is rendered moot. We're just spitballing nonsense and may as well be talking about imaginary entities.

To claim that universals are simply names is to render them total abstractions which can only exist within an individual's mind. It's not a solution to the question of universals so much as it is an attempt to pretend it doesn't exist, but that renders any taxonomy empty of genuine meaning because there is nothing the name refers to in reality.

Names of groups of objects refer to nothing in reality? That's bonkers.

BCP1928 · Monday at 5:42 PM

Fervent said:
How are you supposed to have gotten in there? Last time I checked, we don't share that space.

This undermines nominalism, rather than supporting it. Ostensive definition connects words to concrete objects so when we point at things we are identifying an identity relationship between the object and the word we are using. So all we're doing is clarifying the real referent.

Wow. No wonder you don't think you like Nominalism, if that's what you think of it But you are still a long way from proving that trans people being "out" is a threat to the Christian faith because they use a different definition of "man" and "woman" than you do.

Fervent · Monday at 5:43 PM

BCP1928 said:
It is a fundamental (and unresolved) question of mereology.

Which is a distraction when the conversation is about ontology and the issues with nominalism.

BCP1928 said:
Names of groups of objects refer to nothing in reality? That's bonkers.

You seem to be begging the question with this one, because "groups of objects" implies a known commonality...but if our groupings are built on arbitrary abstractions rather than an inherent and identifiable commonality than there is no real referent involved. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it to, using the commonality as the real referent while denying that it is anything more than an abstraction with no basis in reality. So are they just names, or is there a real referent?

Fervent · Monday at 5:45 PM

BCP1928 said:
Wow. No wonder you don't think you like Nominalism, if that's what you think of it But you are still a long way from proving that trans people being "out" is a threat to the Christian faith because they use a different definition of "man" and "woman" than you do.

Considering you think the individual defines what Christianity means for themselves, I'll take your opinion with a huge grain of salt. Especially since you've done nothing to rebut my arguments.

Jipsah · Monday at 6:07 PM

BCP1928 said:
Yes, but they aren't using your definition of "woman."

Or any other, generally. "What's a woman?" "We just don't know". Make up any def you like. Utterly absurd, but we're supposed to take them seriously.

Jipsah · Monday at 6:13 PM

Fervent said:
Considering you think the individual defines what Christianity means for themselves

Handy, innit?

Fervent · Monday at 6:20 PM

Jipsah said:
Handy, innit?

Sure must be. Makes me think of:

46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?

BCP1928 · Monday at 6:33 PM

Jipsah said:
Handy, innit?

Certainly you don't define it for me, nor Fervent.

BCP1928 · Monday at 6:37 PM

Fervent said:
Which is a distraction when the conversation is about ontology and the issues with nominalism.

You seem to be begging the question with this one, because "groups of objects" implies a known commonality...but if our groupings are built on arbitrary abstractions rather than an inherent and identifiable commonality than there is no real referent involved. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it to, using the commonality as the real referent while denying that it is anything more than an abstraction with no basis in reality. So are they just names, or is there a real referent?

The referent of the name of a group of objects is the group of objects, duh!

Fervent · Monday at 6:38 PM

BCP1928 said:
The referent of the name of a group of objects is the group of objects, duh!

"Group"? What's a group? What defines it?

ozso · Monday at 6:39 PM

Jipsah said:
JUst like the "aliens who walk amongst us". <Laugh>

More like those who think they're aliens who walk among us. Those kids call themselves "Starseeds" or "Star People".

BCP1928 · Monday at 6:44 PM

Fervent said:
Considering you think the individual defines what Christianity means for themselves, I'll take your opinion with a huge grain of salt. Especially since you've done nothing to rebut my arguments.

You haven't made any cogent arguments, and considering your snotty crack about my faith in #167 it appears that you are into nothing but sophistry anyway. Your opinion that trans people being "out" is a threat to the Christian faith is noted.

BCP1928 · Monday at 6:45 PM

Fervent said:
"Group"? What's a group? What defines it?

Give it up. You don't like trans people, that's fine, you don't have to.

Fervent · Monday at 6:49 PM

BCP1928 said:
You haven't made any cogent arguments, and considering your snotty crack about my faith in #167 it appears that you are into nothing but sophistry anyway. Your opinion that trans people being "out" is a threat to the Christian faith is noted.

Uh huh. My argument isn't "trans people being "out"' is a threat, but that it is a symptom of a larger philosophical issue. That you've provided no sensible defense of nominalism and instead resort to this sort of argument-by-assertion speaks more to your preference for "sophistry" than it does my own.

Fervent · Monday at 6:50 PM

BCP1928 said:
Give it up. You don't like trans people, that's fine, you don't have to.

I bear no personal animosity to them, my issue is with the philosophical underpinnings that lead to transgenderism as a symptom of the overall disease.

AV1611VET · Monday at 6:53 PM

ozso said:
More like those who think they're aliens who walk among us. Those kids call themselves "Starseeds" or "Star People".

Sounds like what academia teaches us today.

We're "stardust."

And before any naysayers chime in ...

From AI Overview:

Humans are often described as being made of "stardust" because the elements that make up our bodies, like carbon, oxygen, and iron, were indeed formed within stars through nuclear fusion processes. These elements were then dispersed into space when stars died, and eventually became part of the material that formed planets like Earth and the building blocks of life.

BCP1928 · Monday at 7:54 PM

Fervent said:
Uh huh. My argument isn't "trans people being "out"' is a threat, but that it is a symptom of a larger philosophical issue. That you've provided no sensible defense of nominalism and instead resort to this sort of argument-by-assertion speaks more to your preference for "sophistry" than it does my own.

I don't defend Nominalism, especially not your straw man version of it. The ontological status of universals is unfalsifiable in any case no matter which side of the question you are on. So what is the "larger philosophical issue?" That we can't decide for ourselves who we are, we have to wait for you to tell us? BTW, since you seem to be relying on revelation here, t might be interesting to know where in the Bible it defines "man" and "woman" as specifically excluding trans.

Fervent · Monday at 8:03 PM

BCP1928 said:
I don't defend Nominalism, especially not your straw man version of it. The ontological status of universals is unfalsifiable in any case no matter which side of the question you are on. So what is the "larger philosophical issue?" That we can't decide for ourselves who we are, we have to wait for you to tell us? BTW, since you seem to be relying on revelation here, t might be interesting to know where in the Bible it defines "man" and "woman" as specifically excluding trans.

My "straw man version"? What have I misrepresented about the position that universals exist in name only? And declaring it "unfalsifiable" is hardly a defense, since there is no reason either epistemically or ontologically to prefer "falsifiability" in questions of what is real. We have plenty of desiderata we can appeal to in arbitrating such things, so relying on "unfalsifiability" is nothing but a cop out to avoid having to defend adopting a position. As for the rest of this reply, it's rather ironic that you accuse me of straw manning while creating your complete fabrication of my position as I have stated it, which is purely the philosophical adoption of nominalism(and by extension/or as a resulting from physicalist commitments). As for your question, the onus is on the one trying to insert trans into Biblical definitions of "man" and "woman" to show that trans is included, not to demonstrate that it is excluded.

Hans Blaster · Monday at 8:10 PM

Fervent said:
Considering you think the individual defines what Christianity means for themselves, I'll take your opinion with a huge grain of salt. Especially since you've done nothing to rebut my arguments.

I don't think anyone can define what something like Christianity means to someone else for them. Not you, not me, not anyone on either side of that transaction.

I couldn't figure out what this argument was about, but it turns out it was just a wet noodle fight (metaphysics).

Fervent · Monday at 8:13 PM

Hans Blaster said:
I don't think anyone can define what something like Christianity means to someone else for them. Not you, not me, not anyone on either side of that transaction.

Given your POV, I'm not sure that really matters a whole lot.

Hans Blaster said:
I couldn't figure out what this argument was about, but it turns out it was just a wet noodle fight (metaphysics).

Yes, yes. We know how you disdain such things. So much better to just pretend that yours are simply the default, basic understanding than to engage with discussion on such things. Much more reasonable.

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

✦

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads