a great deal hinges on this point. On the analogical reading, all of finite reality participates in the fullness of the actus essendi of God, and hence God and creation cannot be construed as rivals, since they don’t compete for space, as it were, on the same ontological grid. But on the univocal reading, God and creation are competitive, and a zero-sum game does obtain. The Reformers were massively shaped by the nominalist view that came up from Occam, and they therefore inherited this competitive understanding of God’s relationship to the world, which is evident in so much of their speculation concerning justification, grace, and providence. If God is to get all of the glory, the world has to be emptied of glory; if grace is to be fully honored, nature has to be denigrated; if salvation is all God’s work, cooperation with grace has to be denied. When this notion of God became widespread in Europe after the Reformation, it provoked a powerful counter-reaction, which one can see in almost all of the major philosophical figures of early modernity. The threatening God must be explained away (as in Spinoza), fundamentally identified with human consciousness (as in Hegel), internalized as the ground of the will (as in Kant), or shunted off to the sidelines (as in most forms of Deism). In time, the God of late medieval nominalism is ushered off the stage by an impatient atheism that sees him (quite correctly) as a menace to human flourishing. Thus, Feuerbach can say, “Das Nein zu Gott ist das Ja zum Menschen,” and every atheist since has followed him. Jean-Paul Sartre, in the twentieth century, captured the exasperation with the competitive God in a syllogism: “If God exists, I cannot be free; but I am free; therefore, God does not exist.” And Christopher Hitchens has restated the Feuerbach view, observing that believing in God is like accepting permanent citizenship in a cosmic version of North Korea.
Amazing introduction Dave, is very important to know this cause ockam was the "true" father of modernity, is like a big domino effect. I found very interesting what you said about the abstract ideas existing on God's mind, cause i was reading Feser days ago, and in what he called "the agustinian arguement". He was arguing that abstract ideas implies the existence of God. It would be nice if you could talk about it. God bless.
Thanks for the comment and sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, it's a very interesting topic and even since I made this video I've studied quite a bit more about it. I will definitely revisit this topic with another video soon. God bless you and thanks for the comment encouragement.
Excellent summary on this hard issue, Dave! Congrats and thank you. In fact, if Ockham would’ve taken seriously the Christian doctrine that the Verb, the Second Person of the Trinity, is precisely the very Knowledge of God, he would never had said that God is pure willingness, and, consequently, he would never had proposed nominalism neither as a theology nor as a philosophy. Moreover, very well indicated as Ockham’s disciples Luther, at some extent, Hume, Nietzsche, and Sartre, for the reasons you mention on the video.
Thanks, Frederico. I appreciate your feedback and commentary. That's the odd part. Ockham was a Catholic Christian but still got this key part of epistemology very wrong. Not sure how that happened but I know there is a connection between this teaching and the Ockham's Razor, perhaps the subject of another video! God bless- Dave
Reading St. Thomas' Summa could be a daunting task. For this and other reason alone, could you please make a video on the structure i.e. how to read the different part of an article, in the summa?? Btw, I found your channel recently and your presentation are short n to the point. Thanks n keep on the good work.
@@lomaszaza7142 Thanks for the suggestion. I do think I did a video a while ago about the breakdown of an articles of the Summa but I think it's time to do another. I appreciate your feedback and encouragement. - Dave
I found your video helpful in gaining a little more understanding of Etienne Gilson’s The Unity of Philosophical Experience. “ Gilson reported that Ockham was influenced by Henry of Harclay who attempted to answer the problem of universals and “escape the conclusion that the object of our general ideas is nothing, without relapsing into realism”. But Harclay’s position that “universals are the individuals” was seen by Ockham as a realist position. I have only a vague understanding of what separates Realists from Nominalists but a clear sense that Ockham’s Nominalist position is much more subtle than is being presented or at least was understood by those who came latter. Anyway thanks for helping an old man attempt to discern where the Western World took a wrong turn. Keep up the good work and God bless.
I am still not certain what Nominalism is trying to deny. It’s totally arbitrary to assign “The word Red” to red things, but WHY we call red things red isn’t arbitrary, that is an ability to categorically identify features of reality. The arbitrary word Red is just a function of our minds, but the concept that it’s assigned to isn’t, that’s a feature of reality. Is Nominalism the claim to not understand that distinction? A claim to not understand WHY we call red things red? If so then that’s just absurd. Or, is Nominalism a Darwinian type of claim that there’s no such thing as “An ontological menu of teleological items” in reality, like “Frogs”? Or like a “Flower X, that must be THIS shade of red?” ect?
Joe, thanks for your comment. You're clearly giving this some deep thought. I think one must understand the idea of realism in the Platonic sense, that there is a reality in things that ultimately (As Augustine taught) is in the mind of God. This is what we are able to discover, something the Nominalists deny. I agree it's hard to get one's head around it but I think it's worth trying to figure this out as the confusion about reality is causing a lot of trouble in our world today. I appreciate very much the questions you pose. Perhaps others can weigh in on this question.
So what are we saying here? Realism: rocky--ness is a real thing which this particular rock possesses. Essentialism: rock--ness is in this rock. Nominalism: rockness is in the mind as one category for parsing the world of our experience. After we are well trained in our categories it comes to feel as if the rocky--ness is in the thing or that rocky-- ness itself has independent existence.
Thank you sir! Though personal take, after Sarte you get M. Foucault (who was influenced by Sarte's associate, Simone de Bevoir) who then in turn influenced a group of people who said 'you can remake yourself via surgery', if you get my drift. The consequences are still playing out.
you say Luther was a big fan of william of Occam but he also admired Agustine of Hippo and the mystic Johannes Tauler who were both platonists. so that doesn't really get us very far. but what does get us an idea of his philosophical leanings is his Heidelberg disputation which has a theological theses and a philosophical one. the philosophical theses is basically one long attack on Aristotelianism in favor of platonism. here are two of the theses from that disputation. 36. Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own. 37. The mathematical order of material things is ingeniously maintained by Pythagoras, but more ingenious is the interaction of ideas maintained by Plato. here is a part of his proof of 36. "That Plato’s philosophy is better than Aristotle’s philosophy is plain from the fact that Plato always strives for divine and immortal things, separate and eternal things, insensible and intelligible things. Because of this, he held that particular, inseparable, sensible things should be forsaken, since they could not be knowable on account of their instability. Aristotle, being opposed to him in every way, mocks those separate and intelligible things, and ascribes them to sensible and particular and entirely human and natural things" its clear he was a Platonist. if you want to do some research look up "Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation Revisited in Light of the Philosophical Proofs" Eric G. Phillips
With regard to the Protestant Reformation, it divided the Church up into tens of thousands of denominations which goes against Jesus' prayer for unity, that 'they may be one.' (from the gospel of St. John). Hope this helps. God bless and thanks for the question.
To me, nominalism seems to ignore the fact that being is fundamental to reality, and separate beings exist. How can nominalism account for separate beings? I do agree that nominalism is true for inorganic "things," in the sense that a rock as s rock only exists in rhe mind that is thinking "rock." It seems to me that life (separate being-ness) must exist in a greater mind - God.
Thanks for the insights. I think Plato would have had a form of 'rock-ness' in his theory of forms and that even rocks are known in reality rather than just by a name. I'm trying to get my head around realism and nominalism as I do think it's the fundamental issue of our confused age. I appreciate your comment very much.
I've not read either of these myself but they look to be quite good- The Catastrophe of Nominalism by Roger Olson and The Ontology of Death: Patristic Philosophy Against Nominalism by Matthew Raphael Johnson.
@@thethomist "The Sources of Christian Ethics" (Les sources de la morale chrétienne) by Servais-Théodore Pinkaers, O.P. In this work, Pinkaers discusses the impact of William of Ockham's nominalism on the development of modern thought. Pinkaers argues that Ockham's nominalism, which denies the existence of universal concepts outside the human mind, was like an "atomic bomb" for the medieval worldview and modern era.
@@sunburnfm Thanks for the info. I agree with the comparison of it being like an atomic bomb to the medieval worldview. And we're all still suffering the consequences of that bomb.
I am a Lutheran and I cannot understand Luther without his nominalism that represents a fundamental break with Greek Hellenistic philosophy. It is precisely his method of destruction, the cleaving, severing and splitting away from such metaphysical realism, that I find compelling. Sola fiediesm.
Thanks for your comment. I'm of the opinion that nominalism might be interesting as an idea or concept but no one lives accordinng to nominalist principles in our every day lives. We all work on the assumption of categories, universals, in all we do. We recognize birds universally and dogs and buildings and such. So for Luther to have been a nominalist just makes me more convinced that his departure from the Catholic Church was based on faulty beliefs and premises.
As a Lutheran I don’t think he’s a nominalist, and particularly early on, his greatest opponents were nominalists who often had a very low view of grace. In the Heidelberg disputation, he explicitly endorsed platonic categories. Why do you think he was?
a great deal hinges on this point. On the analogical reading, all of finite reality participates in the fullness of the actus essendi of God, and hence God and creation cannot be construed as rivals, since they don’t compete for space, as it were, on the same ontological grid. But on the univocal reading, God and creation are competitive, and a zero-sum game does obtain. The Reformers were massively shaped by the nominalist view that came up from Occam, and they therefore inherited this competitive understanding of God’s relationship to the world, which is evident in so much of their speculation concerning justification, grace, and providence. If God is to get all of the glory, the world has to be emptied of glory; if grace is to be fully honored, nature has to be denigrated; if salvation is all God’s work, cooperation with grace has to be denied. When this notion of God became widespread in Europe after the Reformation, it provoked a powerful counter-reaction, which one can see in almost all of the major philosophical figures of early modernity. The threatening God must be explained away (as in Spinoza), fundamentally identified with human consciousness (as in Hegel), internalized as the ground of the will (as in Kant), or shunted off to the sidelines (as in most forms of Deism). In time, the God of late medieval nominalism is ushered off the stage by an impatient atheism that sees him (quite correctly) as a menace to human flourishing. Thus, Feuerbach can say, “Das Nein zu Gott ist das Ja zum Menschen,” and every atheist since has followed him. Jean-Paul Sartre, in the twentieth century, captured the exasperation with the competitive God in a syllogism: “If God exists, I cannot be free; but I am free; therefore, God does not exist.” And Christopher Hitchens has restated the Feuerbach view, observing that believing in God is like accepting permanent citizenship in a cosmic version of North Korea.
I found your brief summary of the historical transmission of nominalism to be very helpful. Thank you.
this quote is from Bishop Barron's Erasmus Lecture
Amazing introduction Dave, is very important to know this cause ockam was the "true" father of modernity, is like a big domino effect.
I found very interesting what you said about the abstract ideas existing on God's mind, cause i was reading Feser days ago, and in what he called "the agustinian arguement". He was arguing that abstract ideas implies the existence of God.
It would be nice if you could talk about it. God bless.
Thanks for the comment and sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, it's a very interesting topic and even since I made this video I've studied quite a bit more about it. I will definitely revisit this topic with another video soon. God bless you and thanks for the comment encouragement.
Excellent summary on this hard issue, Dave! Congrats and thank you. In fact, if Ockham would’ve taken seriously the Christian doctrine that the Verb, the Second Person of the Trinity, is precisely the very Knowledge of God, he would never had said that God is pure willingness, and, consequently, he would never had proposed nominalism neither as a theology nor as a philosophy. Moreover, very well indicated as Ockham’s disciples Luther, at some extent, Hume, Nietzsche, and Sartre, for the reasons you mention on the video.
Thanks, Frederico. I appreciate your feedback and commentary. That's the odd part. Ockham was a Catholic Christian but still got this key part of epistemology very wrong. Not sure how that happened but I know there is a connection between this teaching and the Ockham's Razor, perhaps the subject of another video! God bless- Dave
Reading St. Thomas' Summa could be a daunting task. For this and other reason alone, could you please make a video on the structure i.e. how to read the different part of an article, in the summa?? Btw, I found your channel recently and your presentation are short n to the point. Thanks n keep on the good work.
@@lomaszaza7142 Thanks for the suggestion. I do think I did a video a while ago about the breakdown of an articles of the Summa but I think it's time to do another. I appreciate your feedback and encouragement. - Dave
I found your video helpful in gaining a little more understanding of Etienne Gilson’s The Unity of Philosophical Experience. “ Gilson reported that Ockham was influenced by Henry of Harclay who attempted to answer the problem of universals and “escape the conclusion that the object of our general ideas is nothing, without relapsing into realism”. But Harclay’s position that “universals are the individuals” was seen by Ockham as a realist position.
I have only a vague understanding of what separates Realists from Nominalists but a clear sense that Ockham’s Nominalist position is much more subtle than is being presented or at least was understood by those who came latter.
Anyway thanks for helping an old man attempt to discern where the Western World took a wrong turn. Keep up the good work and God bless.
I am still not certain what Nominalism is trying to deny. It’s totally arbitrary to assign “The word Red” to red things, but WHY we call red things red isn’t arbitrary, that is an ability to categorically identify features of reality. The arbitrary word Red is just a function of our minds, but the concept that it’s assigned to isn’t, that’s a feature of reality.
Is Nominalism the claim to not understand that distinction? A claim to not understand WHY we call red things red? If so then that’s just absurd. Or, is Nominalism a Darwinian type of claim that there’s no such thing as “An ontological menu of teleological items” in reality, like “Frogs”? Or like a “Flower X, that must be THIS shade of red?” ect?
Joe, thanks for your comment. You're clearly giving this some deep thought. I think one must understand the idea of realism in the Platonic sense, that there is a reality in things that ultimately (As Augustine taught) is in the mind of God. This is what we are able to discover, something the Nominalists deny. I agree it's hard to get one's head around it but I think it's worth trying to figure this out as the confusion about reality is causing a lot of trouble in our world today. I appreciate very much the questions you pose. Perhaps others can weigh in on this question.
So what are we saying here? Realism: rocky--ness is a real thing which this particular rock possesses. Essentialism: rock--ness is in this rock. Nominalism: rockness is in the mind as one category for parsing the world of our experience. After we are well trained in our categories it comes to feel as if the rocky--ness is in the thing or that rocky-- ness itself has independent existence.
Thank you sir!
Though personal take, after Sarte you get M. Foucault (who was influenced by Sarte's associate, Simone de Bevoir) who then in turn influenced a group of people who said 'you can remake yourself via surgery', if you get my drift. The consequences are still playing out.
Thank you for that additional information. I am aware of de Bevoir, the female Sartre and a very close companion of his. God bless- Dave
you say Luther was a big fan of william of Occam but he also admired Agustine of Hippo and the mystic Johannes Tauler who were both platonists. so that doesn't really get us very far. but what does get us an idea of his philosophical leanings is his Heidelberg disputation which has a theological theses and a philosophical one. the philosophical theses is basically one long attack on Aristotelianism in favor of platonism. here are two of the theses from that disputation.
36. Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own.
37. The mathematical order of material things is ingeniously maintained by Pythagoras, but more ingenious is the interaction of ideas maintained by Plato.
here is a part of his proof of 36.
"That Plato’s philosophy is better than Aristotle’s philosophy is plain from the
fact that Plato always strives for divine and immortal things, separate and
eternal things, insensible and intelligible things. Because of this, he held that
particular, inseparable, sensible things should be forsaken, since they could not
be knowable on account of their instability. Aristotle, being opposed to him
in every way, mocks those separate and intelligible things, and ascribes them
to sensible and particular and entirely human and natural things"
its clear he was a Platonist. if you want to do some research look up "Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation Revisited in Light of the Philosophical Proofs"
Eric G. Phillips
Thank you for this information. I will read, review and respond in full soon. God bless you- Dave
You said "we know you know how disastrous that's been to to Christianity" in relation to the Reformation. Please explain. Thanks
With regard to the Protestant Reformation, it divided the Church up into tens of thousands of denominations which goes against Jesus' prayer for unity, that 'they may be one.' (from the gospel of St. John). Hope this helps. God bless and thanks for the question.
To me, nominalism seems to ignore the fact that being is fundamental to reality, and separate beings exist. How can nominalism account for separate beings? I do agree that nominalism is true for inorganic "things," in the sense that a rock as s rock only exists in rhe mind that is thinking "rock." It seems to me that life (separate being-ness) must exist in a greater mind - God.
Thanks for the insights. I think Plato would have had a form of 'rock-ness' in his theory of forms and that even rocks are known in reality rather than just by a name. I'm trying to get my head around realism and nominalism as I do think it's the fundamental issue of our confused age. I appreciate your comment very much.
Luther wasn't a nominalist
he did admire William of Ockham
Do you know some books against Nominalism?
I've not read either of these myself but they look to be quite good- The Catastrophe of Nominalism by Roger Olson and The Ontology of Death: Patristic Philosophy Against Nominalism by Matthew Raphael Johnson.
@@thethomist "The Sources of Christian Ethics" (Les sources de la morale chrétienne) by Servais-Théodore Pinkaers, O.P. In this work, Pinkaers discusses the impact of William of Ockham's nominalism on the development of modern thought. Pinkaers argues that Ockham's nominalism, which denies the existence of universal concepts outside the human mind, was like an "atomic bomb" for the medieval worldview and modern era.
@@sunburnfm Thanks for the info. I agree with the comparison of it being like an atomic bomb to the medieval worldview. And we're all still suffering the consequences of that bomb.
I still do not understand
I'm sorry the video didn't help. What in particular would you like clarification about? Thanks for being in touch. - Dave
Martin Luther wasn't a nominalist, watch dr.jordan cooper's video refuting your false claim
Many would disagree with Dr. Peterson's opinion on this. I will do my research and see if in fact I gave a false claim.
@@thethomist Many can disagree as they will, he spoke with historical evidence.
I am a Lutheran and I cannot understand Luther without his nominalism that represents a fundamental break with Greek Hellenistic philosophy. It is precisely his method of destruction, the cleaving, severing and splitting away from such metaphysical realism, that I find compelling. Sola fiediesm.
Thanks for your comment. I'm of the opinion that nominalism might be interesting as an idea or concept but no one lives accordinng to nominalist principles in our every day lives. We all work on the assumption of categories, universals, in all we do. We recognize birds universally and dogs and buildings and such. So for Luther to have been a nominalist just makes me more convinced that his departure from the Catholic Church was based on faulty beliefs and premises.
As a Lutheran I don’t think he’s a nominalist, and particularly early on, his greatest opponents were nominalists who often had a very low view of grace. In the Heidelberg disputation, he explicitly endorsed platonic categories. Why do you think he was?