I wold say that arguing they don’t exist is arguing for a empirically formal-based groundness for existence.
By that thinking love also does not.
Science does not have the monopoly fo creating bounded contexts in language.
Hence we must define existence !
By that thinking love also does not.
Science does not have the monopoly fo creating bounded contexts in language.
Hence we must define existence !
Comments
I actually made the same point about complex systems a few weeks ago, nominalism, which was too much for some people.
But we could do well to relax more, try to disconnect from the impulse of incessant interpretation and labeling, focus on breathing, bare feet on the ground, sun or rain or shade on our faces.
Maybe we would be kinder and more generous then.
The tension between our posts is one of philosophy of science : how much empiricism does one need to call something scientific ? Is popper’s définition enough ? The nominalists ?
https://bsky.app/profile/malk-zameth.bsky.social/post/3liylj3c25s2i