RE: Actual Infinity in Reality?
February 16, 2018 at 10:23 pm
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2018 at 10:24 pm by GrandizerII.)
(February 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(February 16, 2018 at 7:28 am)Whateverist Wrote: Interesting point. Do you imagine that the natural laws that govern the universe reflect the universe's intention? Or do such laws just reflect the brute nature of stuff and how it interacts with other stuff?
Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.
When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.
If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.
Qualities only need to exist as qualities/properties of sensible objects for descriptive terms pertinent to them to have meaning. There exist objects with three sides. Having three sides is a quality given the label or term of "triangular".
If there's a flaw in my thinking here, please point it out.