more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
In return for a one-category ontology (with particulars but no universals), the austere nominalist is forced to take a whole host of things (like being red, or triangular, or human) as unanalysable or primitive.
Gist of Idea
Austere nominalism has to take a host of things (like being red, or human) as primitive
Source
Michael J. Loux (Metaphysics: contemporary introduction [1998], p.68)
Book Ref
Loux,Michael J.: 'Metaphysics: a contemporary introduction' [Routledge 2000], p.68
A Reaction
I see that 'red' might have to be primitive, but being human can just be a collection of particulars. It is no ontologically worse to call them 'primitive' than to say they exist.
| 4477 | Universals come in hierarchies of generality [Loux] |
| 4478 | Nominalism needs to account for abstract singular terms like 'circularity'. [Loux] |
| 4480 | Times and places are identified by objects, so cannot be used in a theory of object-identity [Loux] |
| 4481 | Austere nominalists insist that the realist's universals lack the requisite independent identifiability [Loux] |
| 4482 | Austere nominalism has to take a host of things (like being red, or human) as primitive [Loux] |
| 4483 | If abstract terms are sets of tropes, 'being a unicorn' and 'being a griffin' turn out identical [Loux] |