In the matter of discussing reality, or handling reality with words, there are fundamentally only two different (orthogonal, or diametrically opposed) approaches – one that assumes that objects are real and classifies them (traditionally called “nominalism”) and one that assumes that classes are real (traditionally called “realism”, but ought to be called “class realism” to distinguish it from “pragmatism”). Not both of these can be correct because they exclude each other, so, which, if any, is correct?
The answer is that none of them can be correct, because none of them is unambiguous. Instead, one of them (ie, nominalism) is consistent but ambiguous, whereas the other (ie, class realism) is inconsistent, actually paradoxically contradictory. (See Russell’s paradox.)
Furthermore, the ambiguity of nominalism is actually the same “thing” as the paradoxical contradiction of class realism – only viewed at from two different (orthogonal, or diametrically opposed) points of view. This “thing” is thus nothing but an interface that shows up at the end of both nominalism and class realism with these two different (ie, orthogonal, or diametrically opposed) displays. This “thing” is well-known in computer programming called “ambiguous interface”. It is thus this “thing” that stops us from finding “the truth”. It is in practice nothing but a turning point in the eternal change (including rational thinking).
This thing is thus the truth, or rather the place where the truth should be.