Hey everyone,

Just looking for some good arguments for or against platonism. I’ve read the Stanford essay on it, which seems to favor Nominalism. I’m still a bit confused on why Conceptualism is so widely rejected, so any info on that would be greatly appreciated. Platonism as far as I understand just seems to at odds with what we can really say about the world and yet I’m under the impression that it is a relatively popular position to take among philosophers. I’m highly interested in anyone and everyone’s thoughts on the topic, but I’m particularly interested to know Doug Smith’s take on it also.

Thanks everyone.

It’s a can of worms, Kaizen, first of all because there’s a debate about what Plato actually meant, and secondly about what ‘counts’ as Platonism nowadays.

The standard contemporary argument is between so-called universals and nominalism about properties. One of the most eminent philosophers supporting the notion of properties as universals was David Armstrong. I haven’t read through it, but Stanford’s relevant section seems to be THIS one, on properties.

My own take is that nominalism can’t work as a reasonable theory of properties since it can’t explain the universality of causal law. The only plausible theory is a theory of universals, as Armstrong suggests. Some have termed this “Platonic”.

Thanks for the response. Any thoughts on Conceptualism?

Kaizen - 11 January 2011 08:22 PM

Thanks for the response. Any thoughts on Conceptualism?

Insofar as it makes properties dependent upon human abilities to conceptualize, I consider it a nonstarter. But perhaps I’m missing the nuance.