A challenge and a query.
My recent posts on nominalism vs. scholastic realism are a challenge to any philosophical view that insists on pure immanence, such as common materialist, physicalist, etc. views. Any view that rejects the existence of universal descriptive categories now faces a challenge when trying to justify any metaphysical claim, and any transcendental or abductive methods risk anthropomorphizing such claims, because the descriptions cannot claim universality beyond the human. There are many ways around these problems if one chooses to embrace nominalism, but few embrace the consequences of the alternative solutions, e.g., rejecting the principle of sufficient reason. Instead, they hold conflicting and paradoxical views.
I now have a query for various individuals that would propose materialism, nominalism, etc. How do you handle this charge?
I will offer one. A metaphysics based on a derivative of Nietzschean will-to-power. If everything that is, is conflicting points and perspectives of power, then any description is an interpretation performed by one able to impose its will. The cosmos may be pure chaos except as it is ordered by a powerful will, whether the power occurred spontaneously or through chance striving, eventially it imposes order on the rest. The entire structure of our universe is, in fact, the product of a cosmic agon between mad chance that would rend order and the tyranny of a superior will. Dionysus and Apollo battle yet.