Nominalism, Utilitarianism and Pragmatism, the three philosophical foundations of everything wrong with our culture. Nominalism being the queen of all errors.
Doesn't have to be definitive. Give a link or cite a source to what you consider to be the most convincing argument against it. You made the claim and this is a philosophy thread. Unless you're a fideist, in which case you're off the hook.
Also, to be clear, "disproof" is not necessary to reject a metaphysical doctrine, if by "disproof" you mean something like a proof in pure mathematics.
There are various reasons to reject Nominalism as a metaphysical theory: e.g., the inability for knowledge, the collapse of moral values and distinctions, the collapse of meaning, the obliteration of intelligibility, and the unlivability of a consistently held anti-realism about all of the above.
The difficulty I find in answering your question succinctly is that my view on this arises not from reading an article or two in a philosophy journal, but from reading many books across the great tradition as well as a number of modern texts. In short, I would argue that if classical theism is true then Metaphysical Realism (particularly something like Divine Conceptualism) necessarily follows. In other words, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable Creator of all things not identical to himself, then it follows that the things he made have essences, fundamental natures, which correspond to the unchanging and eternal Idea in the mind of God. If, on the other hand, there is no god or even if god is something far less than the God acknowledged by classical theism (which I find compatible with the teaching of Scripture), then Nominalism becomes viable if not absolute. So, in my view, the matter is primarily a theological one and that determines fundamental truths about the nature of reality (ontology).
So, again, no quick article or citation. Obviously the Christian Scriptures are highly relevant (Hebrews in particular has some interesting things to say on this topic), Plato's works (Meno, Timaeus, Republic are good places to start), Aritstotle's Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics, Then I would consider the works of Augustine and Aquinas that touch on the matter as well. Later on one should read Duns Scotus and Ockham (who really promoted the modern idea of Nominalism). Modern writers to read would include James Dolezal (All that is in God), William Lane Craig (God and Abstract Objects), and Matthew Barret's works. There are, of course, many other to be mentioned.
The Platonic Tradition provides a good overview and something of a basic defense of Platonic Realism. A good place to start for those just entering the discussion. There is a hard copy or audible edition for this. https://a.co/d/cUhaUbP
I hope that's helpful and, at least, you don't feel I am blowing you off or just speaking too casually about the issue. I respect plenty of nominalist philosophers, but I think it really is a kind rotten idea that infects other ideas. I think the modern notion of "I can be a different sex if I feel like it" is in some part resultant from the rejection of Realism, that things have fundamental and immutable natures, grounded in more than mere physical stuff. It is the Maker who ultimately determines what things are and we are to submit to his Ideas rather than the other way around.
Kant placed all these categories in the mind, which, unfortunately, was a mental error.
Nominalism is a plague.
Nominalism, Utilitarianism and Pragmatism, the three philosophical foundations of everything wrong with our culture. Nominalism being the queen of all errors.
I’m now following you sir. Clearly you appraise the world as is fitting and right.
You might enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6v0KEyvB0E&t=1s
Disprove nominalism.
Yeah, let me definitively settle that for you in a comment. 😂
Doesn't have to be definitive. Give a link or cite a source to what you consider to be the most convincing argument against it. You made the claim and this is a philosophy thread. Unless you're a fideist, in which case you're off the hook.
Also, to be clear, "disproof" is not necessary to reject a metaphysical doctrine, if by "disproof" you mean something like a proof in pure mathematics.
There are various reasons to reject Nominalism as a metaphysical theory: e.g., the inability for knowledge, the collapse of moral values and distinctions, the collapse of meaning, the obliteration of intelligibility, and the unlivability of a consistently held anti-realism about all of the above.
Here you go. It's not a long book, you can read it yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Roots-Constructivism-Nominalism-Knowledge-ebook/dp/B0BKX2TVN9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1QBOC0TPHC4ZV&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.xZooEnLMOSfUqPaeQA1FcQ.I-W2M8J-WnZLxlBSnOCVWkDopLZtNI_1sv6SeWzwO7E&dib_tag=se&keywords=r+scott+smith+nominalism+and+the+roots&qid=1730737860&sprefix=r+scott+smith+nominalism+and+the+roots%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-1
The difficulty I find in answering your question succinctly is that my view on this arises not from reading an article or two in a philosophy journal, but from reading many books across the great tradition as well as a number of modern texts. In short, I would argue that if classical theism is true then Metaphysical Realism (particularly something like Divine Conceptualism) necessarily follows. In other words, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable Creator of all things not identical to himself, then it follows that the things he made have essences, fundamental natures, which correspond to the unchanging and eternal Idea in the mind of God. If, on the other hand, there is no god or even if god is something far less than the God acknowledged by classical theism (which I find compatible with the teaching of Scripture), then Nominalism becomes viable if not absolute. So, in my view, the matter is primarily a theological one and that determines fundamental truths about the nature of reality (ontology).
So, again, no quick article or citation. Obviously the Christian Scriptures are highly relevant (Hebrews in particular has some interesting things to say on this topic), Plato's works (Meno, Timaeus, Republic are good places to start), Aritstotle's Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics, Then I would consider the works of Augustine and Aquinas that touch on the matter as well. Later on one should read Duns Scotus and Ockham (who really promoted the modern idea of Nominalism). Modern writers to read would include James Dolezal (All that is in God), William Lane Craig (God and Abstract Objects), and Matthew Barret's works. There are, of course, many other to be mentioned.
The Platonic Tradition provides a good overview and something of a basic defense of Platonic Realism. A good place to start for those just entering the discussion. There is a hard copy or audible edition for this. https://a.co/d/cUhaUbP
I hope that's helpful and, at least, you don't feel I am blowing you off or just speaking too casually about the issue. I respect plenty of nominalist philosophers, but I think it really is a kind rotten idea that infects other ideas. I think the modern notion of "I can be a different sex if I feel like it" is in some part resultant from the rejection of Realism, that things have fundamental and immutable natures, grounded in more than mere physical stuff. It is the Maker who ultimately determines what things are and we are to submit to his Ideas rather than the other way around.
Great summary, thank you!
You’re welcome!