>"Congratulations!

>"Congratulations! You've denied universals! So what's the next step of your master plan?"

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Crashing this particular... With no survivors.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >*paves the way for the enlightenment*

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what's with that blood vs crips symbology in there.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I love this meme, OP. Thank you very much for the laugh.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why do transgenders hate him?

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    HE DIDN'T INDIVIDUATE SO GOOD
    WHO WANTS TO TRY NEXT

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_Have_Consequences
    >Ideas Have Consequences is a philosophical work by Richard M. Weaver, published in 1948 by the University of Chicago Press. The book is largely a treatise on the harmful effects of nominalism on Western civilization since this doctrine gained prominence in the Late Middle Ages, followed by a prescription of a course of action through which Weaver believes the West might be rescued from its decline.

    >Weaver attributes the beginning of the Western decline to the adoption of nominalism (or the rejection of the notion of absolute truth) in the late Scholastic period. The chief proponent of this philosophical revolution was William of Ockham.
    >The consequences of this revolution, Weaver contends, were the gradual erosion of the notions of distinction and hierarchy, and the subsequent enfeebling of the Western mind's capacity to reason. These effects in turn produced all manner of societal ills, decimating Western art, education and morality.
    >As examples of the most recent and extreme consequences of this revolution, Weaver offers the cruelty of the Hiroshima bombing, the meaninglessness of modern art, America's cynicism and apathy in the face of the just war against Nazism, and the rise of what he terms "The Great Stereopticon".

    Why did he do it?

    • 1 year ago
      Dirk

      I don't see how libertinism follows from nominalism, moreover I don't see why that should even be part of the equation when evaluating nominalism

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >"woman" isn't real
        >therefore I can be a woman

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Based. Chuds flap their pieholes about "universals", but have you ever seen such a thing? Everyone has seen particulars, to be sure, but can you actually make the distinction between a universal and any purely linguistic distinction? Is there a universal of "iphoneness"? Or a universal of "diaperfur-inflation-fetish-art-drawn-in-deviant-art-styleness"?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >can you actually make the distinction between a universal and any purely linguistic distinction?
            Yeah.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So is there iphoneness?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There are multiple symbols of the number 1 (roman I, arabic ١ and japanese 一) and multiple words for the number 1 (uno, wahid, ichi) but these particulars all relate to the universals number one which must have a real existence and not just as a nominal imagination or social construct projected upon the world but as a real existence.

            If it would be truly that way that mankind could just project laws through thought-will into the universe then there are no laws on which this universe is build and this would lead to a chaotic absurdity in which a man can also be a woman if he wills it because reality would just be a form that humans could shape, including genders if there are no essences.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            #
            >these particulars all relate to the universals number one which must have a real existence and not just as a nominal imagination or social construct projected upon the world but as a real existence.
            That's begging the question. You should read Wittgenstein.
            >If it would be truly that way that mankind could just project laws through thought-will into the universe then there are no laws on which this universe is build and this would lead to a chaotic absurdity in which a man can also be a woman if he wills it because reality would just be a form that humans could shape, including genders if there are no essences.
            This assertion makes no sense under nominalism. You're looking at a critique of realism, frowning and saying "this wouldn't work under realism!"... Well yeah no shit. That's not a valid counterargument to be levied against a nominalist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So where is the number 1 located and if it is located in the human mind how do you know that you're looking at something real and not a subjective illusion of the human mind?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the meaninglessness of modern art, America's cynicism and apathy in the face of the just war against Nazism
      ???
      The Nazis were anti-nominalist if anything

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *