<2021-09-02T02:00:32.000Z> Cordon_de_Yute: I know you read Vox Day. I'm curious to know whether you read this particular post voxday.net/2021/09/01/rule-by-ontology/ I  think the rhetorical argument here is strong, but I'm not sure if the philosophical argument is sound. I know you are well versed in these topics so I am interested in your thoughts.
<2021-09-02T13:12:13.000Z> DK_Dharmaraj: this is a rare miss for vox. he doesn't really understand what "ontology" means 
<2021-09-02T13:12:35.000Z> DK_Dharmaraj: like ontology most literally just means "the study of being," it is a branch of philosophy, not opposed to it
<2021-09-02T13:13:11.000Z> DK_Dharmaraj: furthermore he is using a definition of nominalism derived from mid 20th century critiques, exactly the same way Rod Dreher does ironically
<2021-09-02T13:13:25.000Z> DK_Dharmaraj: POLITICAL critiques I should note, not philosophical ones
<2021-09-02T13:16:47.000Z> DK_Dharmaraj: but there is more to nominalism than just William of Ockham, Buddhist philosophy is relentlessly nominalist (Indian philosophy generally actually discuss the problem of universals in ways that are strikingly similar to the Western tradition)
<2021-09-02T13:17:14.000Z> DK_Dharmaraj: so like I could chime in and explain all the ways in which "nominalism" doesn't entail the position he's talking about... but it isn't really worth it 
<2021-09-03T02:21:31.000Z> Cordon_de_Yute: Thanks for the response. Something about it seemed off to me but my philosophical education is slim. Just say "These motherfuckers are living in their heads." and leave the philosophy out if you don't understand it.