Why WIlliam of Ockham's Nominalism Sucks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- A dialogue on the problems of the philosophical nominalism of William of Ockham from the point of view of the perennial philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Ockham's nominalism was destructive of natural law morality, formal causality and teleology, and indeed any real attempt at unified knowledge.
Amazing video. Some trad birdies being quirky and unapologetically scholastic, the silly music, the funny bit underlying the whole theme of the video, the not editing/low quality. Absolute gem. Love it.
Logos is Rising! Great work
I hope this channel continues to make videos like this. I don't see a lot of Medieval philosophy represented on TH-cam.
Thanks for watching. We figured there would be some niche for medieval philosophy. Glad you appreciated. More coming. Share with your friends.
I think this is one of the best videos on TH-cam. I´m amazed it doesn´t have more views.
Wow. Thanks for watching it. Share with a friend!
@@peterbrown6612 I will... but it needs subtitles!
@@guardiaverde7455 You know you can turn them on TH-cam closed captioning? Not perfect but they do work about 95%.
I have studied this topic a lot, but this video has been so extremely helpful since it shows at the issue from a Catholic perspective. Great work!
Thanks for watching
THANK YOU!
I FINALLY understand how 'nominalism' was used by Luther to justify the 'Reformation': if there is no human nature, than there is no morality...
Actually, there is no need for Salvation either - which is why, in the end, it matters not what one does ...so long as one 'believes' IN NOMINALISM!
Oh my god - how have I never seen this. Wow. I really love it. Thank you for being so silly :)
Ockham had the sharpest razor of all the barbers in Russell's Paradox. Not to be outdone by a razor, the French invented the guillotine. Why cut hair if you can cut the head off? That's how the revolution solved the paradox.
In Ancient Greece, women had T-shirts, watches, glasses and short hair? 🤔🤔
This guy is basically a christian version of david hume .
He's the guy who made Occam's Razor; He's GREAT!!!
The concept was around before Ockham. But he carried it further than it had before.
@@peterbrown6612 It is the simplest conclusion that he made the razor and is therefore great, lol
@@xxsinfulxbumxx6341 nice! I think we give him his due here. We don't like his effect on theology which is main point of video.
@@peterbrown6612 I know, I just think it's funny that the Ockham's Razor of Ockham's Razor is that it is good is hilarious.
Amazing content but the music was very distracting. 😊
I have never heard of this stuff before, however, during my time in the Protestant world I felt the consequences of it all. It completely distorts God
Thanks, very accessible!
Ockham was the forefather of "everything is a social construct".
How do you figure that? I would have said Kant and Hegel.
@@peterbrown6612 The reduction of everything to "individuals" and the denial of abstract nature or essence. But I'm not learned enough to really make a claim here, I've only dipped a toe into Kant and haven't even approach Hegel yet. I just think the denial of abstract nature and the reduction of everything to individuals is very post-modern. I've had conversions with people who deny nature even tho they may not put it that way and usually it goes inline with something very ideological about individuality and letting people do what that want, moral relativism, which is post-modernism from my understanding, and it is from post-modernism that we get the whole "everything is a social construct". It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me to go from "there are no abstract natures or they're unnecessary" to "abstract natures are socially constructed to keep people in line".
I would have said Protagoras : "Man is the measure of all things!"
@@peterbrown6612I don't think Kant denied the existence of objective truth. 🤔🤔
Wycliffe, an extreme realist, detested William of Ockham for his nominalism.
@17:08 "Only in a world tinged by Ockhamism [is this a thing?], skepticism, and the fragmentation of knowledge, is such a crazy belief possible ..."
Really?
Yesssss
Thank You❤
The woman defending Occam is nothing more than a punching bag composed of straw. No Classical Nominalist would argue in the manner of her.
The primary error that critics of Classical Nominalism make, is the conflation between Classical Nominalism and Mereological Nominalism, which is the position that we cannot truly predicate accidental forms, species, genuses, etc (any given universal) of particulars, i.e., that universal predications are inherently false and thus, that universals are unquantifiable, which is precisely what William of Occam rejected. Occam postulated a metaphysical commitment to abstract objects of first intention that are common, which substitute in place of second intentional-values, such as species and genuses, along with accidental forms, while parsing out any ontological commitment to them, which he regarded as unnecessary. Obviously, William of Occam hashing out a system akin to a very early coherence theory of truth, by which truth-values are distinguished from ontological-values, is a necessary entailment of his theory of metaphysics. But if you read Occam's theory of terms, he genuinely believed that he was defending the historical metaphysical theory of Aristotle against the models of Scotus, etc.
I regard that there are more sufficient critiques of Occam, especially regarding the internal intricacies of the hylomorphically-related entailments of his theory. I.e., Occam's conception of the human substance greatly diverges from other Scholastic thinkers, insofar as his metaphysic (which rejects that any substance can possibly be common, as substances have an ontological standing) forces him to postulate a prime-matter theory of the human substance, as in, the notion that the human substance is not a compound of body and soul, but rather, a rational soul and abstract prime matter, which is pure potency, hence, he asserts that Christ could have incarnated in the body of donkey in another possible world. Hence, it seems as if Occam would be forced to adhere to the notion that 'animal with a sensitive soul' is not a genus, but a species, lest his position be arbitrary by failing to demarcate a specific difference, between, say, a lion, and a dog that isn't solely by virtue of some accidental form (as inter-specific human racial differences are).
Just my take.
4:50 that's not his position
That's Mereological Nominalism, which is a reductionist theory of metaphysics (the reduction of metaphysics to linguistics).
I don't believe that it's fair to portray Occam as a materialist who adheres to the truthmaker theory.
Occam would say that Socrates and Plato are both humans because they both satisfy the same set specific set of necessary instantiation conditions.
William of Occam, in the Summa Logica, Chapter 17., writes that Socrates and Plato agree in the mode of species, but differ numerically. Occam later defines a species as a universal 'in quid', or in essence. So no, he doesn't reject that all humans share the same nature, but rather, that they constitute the same common nature, not in virtue of something that exists, but in virtue of the common necessary conditions required to be human that they instantiate.
What does jerusalem Have to do with Athens? Tertullian
A little unbiased, don't you think?
William of Ockham: Church and state should be separated
Pope John XXII: *Heretic!*
So if we chuck teleology, formal causes, and God, then nominalism is fine? Ok. Deal.
“Why William O’s Nominalism sucks”. Don’t be shy; tell us what you really think. A touch tendentious, I might suggest. Of course, when the good friar William got excommed by John22, it was not for “nominalism”. You might wish to revise the reason why.
Did you actually watch the video or are you just reacting to the title?
@@peterbrown6612 Oh, I noticed how my reply to your question above has been erased. I wonder how that might have happened.
At first, I thought that this was going to be a superficial treatment of Occam, geared more to entertainment than substance. I was surprised by how the concise treatment of Occam revealed his radicalism. Irony?
Thanks for watching
Who is creating these videos?
One of my fav philosophers. People who disagree with him are just confused, thinking their language games are equivalent to real objects.
If nominalism is true everything you wrote here is meaningless. The very nominalist concept is meaningless, it is a self-defeating view. It's irrational nosense. And a first step on the road to complete theoretical nihilism.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 If you have any desire in me coming to see things your way, gotta explain why you think as you do. So far you've done nothing but confirm what I said 3 years ago: that you're confused.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Why should I respond if my response is just weird shapes that pop up on your computer or phone that don't carry any meaning? You are the one who is confused if you think you can have any actual conversation when you think what you think.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 Because I, unlike you, don't let my philosophical metaphysics dictate my worldview on everything in the universe. Specifically, I don't let it dictate what I find meaningful. Both false and true, fictional and real things, are meaningful to me. That includes language and the symbols you use when commenting. I'm not a rationalist like you.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter But isn't meaning itself meaningless & not refering to anything real as every universal is in nominalism? And You thinking that something is meaningful does not give any actual meaning to the thing you proclaim meaningful. And your decision to think something is meaningful is also meaningless if nominalism is right. And it has no bearing on what anyone else considers to have meaning. I do think this view is self-contradictory & radically relativististic. And insane. 😅 And I am not a rationalist in a sense that I don't believe that reason is the only way to reach truth.
Since every single bear is different who decides what bear nature is or what the form of bear essentially is or what the perfection of a bears nature is. Basically we call things bears that share some similar attributes to make it easier to talk about them and then we observe what some of them do some of the time and call this bear nature. But once we're here we're not discovering anything about nature we are just using generalizations to apply labels to things.
Ockham: Worst. Philosopher. Ever.
Thanks for watching
This video is dogmatic Christian cringe. Don't hate philosophers. Understand them. They're not evil.
nah
"dogmatic Christian cringe" I bet Ockham, a Franciscan friar and theologian who devouted his entire life to Christ, would surely agree with you lol.
Nominalism is great. Realism sucks.
What is nominalism sounds like you reger to a universal. And also what is great, when I talk abou nominalism and you talk about nominalism, do we talk of the same thing?
Yes, nominalism sucks in medical , pharmacist world sucks.