nominalist

The formula is not a natural thing, to a nominalist, and does not exist independently of the humans who invented it.

If anything, the usual accusation levied at them is that they drift too far in the nominalist direction.

It is not at all substantive to use a nominalist position in metaphysics as somehow vindicating the field.

Whereas, most people today are nominalists, and given nominalist assumptions, that whole approach doesn't make much sense.

And please, don't tell me, it's the same with a white horse, without reading a bit of Chinese nominalist philosophy.

Hume is an empiricist, not a nominalist: he doesn't deny the existence of abstract categories, only their a priori intelligibility.

A nominalist would never grant that such a realm exists or he would be a realist/platonist.

So, the nominalist claim doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong.

Giordano Bruno, Baruch Spinoza, Galileo, the nominalist Peter Abelard; goods that had to circumnavigate hierarchical society.

Science generally accepts that the identities it discusses are nominalist and conditional.

I won't join you in nominalist hell and I won't lift you out of a well.

I'm sure they change something for plausible deniability, as a nominalist, not even 2 of the same computers are the same.

A nominalist, a Aristotelian realist, a Platonist (etc.), are all going to approach the question "what is life?" differently.

When you call life "an artificial categorization that humans use because it is useful to them", you are espousing the nominalist solution to the problem of the universals, and applying that to biology.

Thousands of years ago, the Chinese nominalist philosophers built an entire school out of saying, "A white horse is not a horse", and if you read what they said, they were right.

But the nominalist must deny this, and say that the vegetable only "follows" the formula because humans have said it does, and if the humans all vanished there would no longer be any humans to say things about the vegetable.

Not really it's a common noun, which just means non-physical objects which exist in some way, even if Nominalist.

You’re claiming a perfect map exists (Platonist position); I’m saying that if such a thing exists, it’s just the territory itself, which isn’t a map (Nominalist position).