Anyone thinking wholes and parts are ontic categories is either a fraudester or a stupid philosopher (i.e. doubly fraudster). There is no such ontic categories. You construct new wholes to reveal the underlying fragments, you glue the fragments to uncover new wholes ad infinitum.
-
-
Radical nominalism perhaps? Any kind of scientific theory includes this kind of pointing towards external phenomena, including matter and the relations between matter. In order to compare our abstract categories with reality, we must "name" it.
-
not unlike how a painter names different curves and shades through the act of imitating their reference.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.