Nominalism and the avoidance of specific difference
April 11, 2014 § 8 Comments
Nominalism is all about avoiding the implications of the essences of things, and one of the easiest ways to avoid the implications of essences is to obfuscate specific differences.
Take adultery, for example. Adultery has an essence, and the specific difference between sex acts generally and adultery in particular is that adultery takes place between partners at least one of whom is married to someone else.
Or take a contracepted sex act. The specific difference between sex acts generally and contracepted sex acts in particular is that the latter have been modified in some way which blocks natural fertility.
I myself have concluded, after a couple of years of experience with the subject, that the specific difference between Game/sluttiness and social competence more generally is inchastity.
What nominalists do in order to avoid judgment of the things they support is obfuscate specific differences. That is why we are constantly being cajoled into assent to trite slogans (“social competence is good!”; “psychological knowledge can be used for good or evil!” etc.) and told that that is Game.
[…] have nowhere else to go other than pickup artists. That means that what Game teaches must have a specific difference from what it has been possible to learn elsewhere in the decades before the “Game […]
[…] the specific difference of Game in action: instead of being focused on the common good of the community under a leader […]
I can’t help but notice that there is no more like button. Sad but understandable. I have nothing substantive to odd other than that I liked the post.
[…] are plenty of words like this, and they multiply and proliferate as our nominalist society attempts to win cultural territory through the conquest of language. […]
[…] teeth. Behaviorism proposes to reduce the human experience to nothing but observable behaviors. Nominalism proposes that there are no meaningful universals or essences, so language is nothing but the […]
[…] is self-contradictory to make freedom a political priority, because politics is essentially the art of resolving controverted cases. By definition all parties in controverted cases cannot be […]
[…] thing that waking up to the obvious examples shows is that we can be fooled by the obvious. Nominalist pseudo-categories conflating things rooted in reality with what human subjects want, intend, or expect is […]
[…] because something is labeled ‘worship’ it does not follow that it has the objective qualities essential to worship. […]