For predicate nominalism, these "are devices" because they fall under such a predicate.
The notion of nominalism is used in the field of philosophy to refer to the doctrine that rejects, at the objective level, the existence of universals . In this way it opposes idealism and realism .
The object dominates the concept
For nominalism, universals are simple conventions . His position is that only individual things exist objectively : general concepts are developed through intellectual activity, lacking an independent existence of things.
Continuing with the reasoning of the promoters of nominalism, universals fail to reflect the qualities and properties of things. In short, things have existence prior to universals, which are nothing more than names .
Nominalism gives preponderance to the object , leaving the concept at a secondary level. From the point of view of critics of this doctrine, nominalists do not take into account that individual things contain the general nor that general concepts can reflect real properties of that which has objective existence.
Emergence and founders
Although there are different aspects of nominalism, it can be said that the movement was born from a reflection on the problem of universals . While realism maintains that there are things that belong to the same type because universals exist (since they are present in different things), for nominalism the universal is an intellectual construction (a response generated by the brain to something). present in the real world).
William of Ockham y Roscelin of Compiègne son dos de los pensadores señalados como fundadores e impulsores del nominalismo. Ambos realizaron diversos aportes a la filosofía de la Middle Ages. Con el tiempo se desarrollaron diferentes tipos de nominalismo, con un rango que va desde el extremo a una visión prácticamente realista.
Predicate nominalism
According to this type of nominalism, only particulars that fall under the predicate P have the property P. Let's see an example of this statement: a computer and a telephone are devices because the predicate "they are devices" can be applied to both particulars. . The same can be applied to any similarity attribute presented by two given objects.
Those who have most criticized this position point out that it does not offer us a satisfactory solution to the problem of universals . It seems that it does not provide a metaphysical explanation about the assumption that a set of objects are similar or agree on the attribute.
Concept nominalism
This type of nominalism proposes a different approach, according to which only particulars that fall under the concept P have the homonymous property . Among the criticisms that have been received, it stands out that it requires the use of concepts to explain problematic entities, and this entails entering into a new problem to solve the previous one.
By "similarity", anything adequately similar to football is a sport.
Resemblance nominalism
It is also called similarity , and states that only particulars that adequately resemble a paradigm case of a P possess the homonymous property. In other words, for an individual to have said property, it is necessary to compare it with another that can be taken as a reference, who undeniably or unquestionably has it.
For some of its defenders, the bond of resemblance itself must be considered a universal, the only one needed. On the other hand, there are those who believe that each link is a particular, and the relationship of similarity exists as long as it is compared with others, which gives rise to an infinite regress , a series of entities that does not end and is governed by a recursive principle. according to which each one depends on the previous one or is created by it.