Extreme Nominalism and Realism are two very different interpretations of the world. They both fall under the realm of metaphysics, which is the sector of philosophy that deals with the roots of existence and the general principles of things. Although this quote should mean the same thing to two philosophically ignorant people, to a realist and an extreme nominalist, this quote represents two very different things. Wisdom and ignorance are properties, therefore, a realist would see this quote as well written, as opposed to an extreme nominalist who would call it bad rhetoric and re-formulate the sentences. Although neither extreme nominalism nor realism are proven entities, extreme nominalism is the concept which makes more sense.
Extreme Nominalism is a facet of metaphysics that doesn't believe in properties. What this means is that there is no description in the world that can be applied to two things. Which is to say everything in the world is particular. In extreme nominalism when a shoe is blue, the shoe is blue. The shoe and blue are not independent of each other, there is no such concept of blue - only a “blue shoe.” In extreme nominalism there are “blue things” but there is not an actual property called “blue;” blue is simply a word describing the shoe rather than a property which is instantiated by the shoe. Blue, and other properties are never independent from other objects. To an extreme nominalist, a name is simply a name and nothing more. A name doesn't describe anything, it simply refers to languages and references humans have made throughout the years. Although realism and extreme nominalism are both interpretations of the world, they are in fact very different.
Unlike extreme nominalism, realism is based around the principle that properties do exist. To a realist, properties are represented(instantiated) by particulars. In the case of the blue shoe, there is a type of blue, and it is represented by the shoe, but blue and the shoe exist on their own as well. Realists also believe that properties are capable of multiple instantiations, and are not confined to one particular. For example, blue is not confined to describing a shoe, but also the sky, the ocean, and a pair of eyes. Even so, realists believe that every property is abstract and unique. To a realist, if there is a blue shoe, there is “blue” and it is instantiated by the shoe. There is not simply a blue shoe, but a shoe and the property of blue. Realists realize that this particular shoe can exist with or without the blue and vice versa. Realists also believe that it is the job of people to discover properties; they believe that properties exist before people discover them, and that it is the job of humans to find them.
It is easy to see that a realist and nominalist mainly differ when discussing the idea of “properties.” Although the two both acknowledge the existence of objects, they do not see eye to eye on concepts or properties.
“Socrates was ignorant but he aspired to wisdom, which he felt was a virtue and closer to goodness than ignorance. It was clear that he shared some of these qualities with his mother.” Although this quote seems straightforward, when analyzed by an extreme nominalist or a realist the quote can be reformulated just as easily as it can be accepted.
Since extreme nominalists do not believe in properties, it would only be natural and faithful to their practice for them to reformulate this quote. In this quote, “wisdom,” and “ignorance,” take the shape of “properties,” which in the practice of extreme nominalism do not exist. In response to the first sentence of this quote an extreme nominalist might say:
“It is impossible for Socrates to work away from ignorance and aspire towards wisdom. There are no such things as wisdom and ignorance, they are simply names of properties. Since wisdom and ignorance do not actually exist, how can someone aspire towards, and move away from them? Socrates could be described as wise, or ignorant, But it is impossible to work towards or away from these "words."”
If the first sentence of the quote was switched around to an extreme nominalists liking, it could potentially look like this:
“Socrates was ignorant, but he wanted to be wise; which he felt was better than being ignorant.”
An extreme nominalist would also get rid of the words “virtue,” and “goodness.” Since they are also properties. An extreme nominalist would also reformulate the second sentence.; because since there are no properties, words that describe can't be shared. When two people are “wise,” they do not share the concept of having “wisdom,” they are both coincidentally simply described as “wise.” An extreme nominalist might change the second sentence to say:
