Qfe

I can be a shock absorber or a shock amplifier. Depends on me!

Argument is over:)

Your position has shifted multiple times in this discussion. 1. You started with: intelligibles reduce to language - nominalism. 2. Then, essence is just aggregation of sensible qualities - anti‑realism. 3. Then, essences exist independently of both mind and particulars. These are not the same position. You cannot hold all three simultaneously. If essences are independent of mind and particulars, they can't also be aggregations of sensible qualities. Aggregation requires both a mind and particulars. Independent essences require neither. Before accusing Ibn Taymiyya of confusion, you need to resolve this contradiction in your own account. Your last response itself contains three claims that cannot be simultaneously true (1) "essence is merely an aggregation of accidental sensible qualities to which ABC name is assigned" (2) "even if there are no particulars or minds, there can still be non‑material essences of things" (3) "tamāthul is based on reflection & conception which is prior to discursive process if that’s what you mean by mental act" (1) and (2) are incompatible because aggregation requires both mind and particulars, while (2) denies the need for either. (3) directly contradicts (1): if tamāthul (resemblance) is extra‑mental and prior to any mental act then the ground of essence exists outside the mind. It cannot be merely a mental aggregation or a convenient label. The real problem comes from your own concession. You previously agreed: "Tamathul is based on reflection & conception which is prior to discursive process if that’s what you mean by mental act." So tamāthul exists in the external world prior to any mental act. Now, a nominalist can indeed accept resemblance. The standard nominalist can say: "Resemblance exists, but it does not amount to a shared nature or essence, it's just a set of similar qualities." In Ibn Taymiyya's framework, tamāthul is not a bare, quality‑by‑quality similarity. It is the ground of species‑unity (nev‘î vahdet). For him, particulars of a species share a real likeness that makes them belong to one kind. That shared likeness is not a Platonic Form nor is it a mental construct. It is the extra‑mental reality that the mind later abstracts as the universal. To accept tamāthul as prior to mind is therefore to accept that there is a real, extra‑mental ground for the universal which is precisely what distinguishes realism (or strong conceptualism) from nominalism. If you deny that this resemblance constitutes a shared nature then you are reading Ibn Taymiyya against his own understanding of tamāthul and species. Hence your earlier concession (tamāthul prior to mind) directly undermines your claim that for Ibn Taymiyya essences are "merely an aggregation of accidental sensible qualities" or "words given to generalizations for the easiness of knowledge." If tamāthul is already there before the mind acts, the mind does not invent the essence, it grasps something real. Your attempt to invoke a metaphysics/physics distinction does not rescue you. You are assuming an Aristotelian definition of metaphysics (being qua being, transcendentals) and then faulting Ibn Taymiyya for not operating within that framework. He explicitly rejects that "being qua being" corresponds to an independent ontological domain. The disagreement is at the level of first principles, not a failure to "distinguish" disciplines. This entire sub‑debate, however, is secondary: until you resolve the contradiction between your own three positions and the fact that you already conceded tamāthul prior to mind, calling Ibn Taymiyya a nominalist remains untenable. If tamāthul is prior to mind and constitutes a real ground for species‑unity, then Ibn Taymiyya is not a nominalist. If you want to insist he is a nominalist, then you must either withdraw your concession that tamāthul is prior to mind, or show that in his system tamāthul does not entail any shared nature. You have done neither. Shortly rubbish!

Üç farklı ontolojiyi aynı anda savunup, en kritik noktada kendi kabulünle kendini çelişkiye düşürmek… Buna felsefede zengin düşünce denir herhalde:) Dikkat edin, okumadığınız metinler üzerinden duvara toslarsiniz.

Agree. But... If someone dedicates their entire platform to intra-Islamic sectarian disputes while completely ignoring the closure of Aqsa, that tells you something. It's a priorities test and they're failing it. Two possibilities maybe, They operate based on whatever's politically convenient. Bashing Ikhwanis is safe and earns clout within their circle. Taking a stance on Aqsa gets complicated when certain governments are involved. When all your mental energy goes into classifying people like, is he Sururi, Madkhali, Ikhwani, the actual issues facing Muslims become invisible. Theology collapses into sectarianism. That said, this cuts both ways. Ikhwanis do the same thing in reverse, waving Aqsa as a banner while dodging their own contradictions. Aqsa can become a performance too. So the real question isn't whether someone talks about Aqsa. It's whether they talk about everything or just whatever serves their narrative. Neither fixation alone is enough.

Hmm takip edeyim.

Kimler var ki şuan Sururi hareketinden. Londra'da dergileri vardı.

Kendine diyor. Kimse üstüne alınmasın.

@MericKerem Gelsin de bakarız:))

@dr_qfe Her sey mevsiminde guzel tabi. Little forest'taki gibi hepsinin keyfini kendi zamaninda cikarip, sonrakini iple cekmek harika bir yasam tarzi. Tek istisnasi sirf senin icin hazirlamis birinin elinden cikan bir sey olabilir.

Bunu bana neden yapıyorsunuz. Şuan hiç sırası değildi.

Neyse.

@MericKerem Dondurulmuş hiçbir şeyi kullanmam ben. Yaz gelir, incirlerimi yollarsın. Takvimine ekle.

@dr_qfe Vaay, elimden gelir diyorsun yani. Bir yerlerde dondurulmus yas incir yok mudur yav bulamaz miyiz ki

@MericKerem Tabii, sen incirlerimi yolla bir tabak yaparız sana da. Nolcak.

@dr_qfe Olgunlasmis yumusak Aydin incirinin uzerine max taze kaymak veya dondurma koyar keyfime bakarim. Tabagi ismarlayan olursa bakariz hangisi daha iyiymis. O zamana kadar tazeden devam biz.

O kadar Sokrates mantığı öğrendiniz, felsefe biliyorum diye geçindiniz. LLM cevabını hap gibi yuttunuz mu;(

Bunu açıklamak zorunda olması, utanç verici. Kullanıcıların ne boyutta bir hödük olduğunu örnekle açıklamış:))

Yazılım olmadan, fizik doğrudan elektrik devresiyle çözülünce.

Pseudo-Chinese "telgraf dili" gibi, anlam var gramer eksik.

"私は学校に行きます" (Okula gidiyorum) cümlesinden hiragana'lar çıkarılınca "私学校行" kalır, bu da gayet anlaşılır bir Çince.

@MericKerem Tazesini unutturacak kadar iyidir bu tabak. Tam bir kış tabağı ama yazı beklicez mecbur:)

@dr_qfe Incir kendi basina zaten muhtesem bir meyve. Fransizlar her zaman oldugu gibi fazla abartmislar. Ha simdi onume koysalar bu tabagi yerim o ayri tabi.

@ZherkaOfficial x.com/i/status/20375…

Be careful with the idea that everyone is replaceable. Some people are truly one of a kind.

@MbarkCherguia Türkiye

Does anyone actually like olives??