Realism and Nominalism explained through the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Ockham
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- Do you know what is the difference between Realism and Nominalism? If not, you should because as is explained in this video the struggle between these two ideas is playing out in a huge way in our culture today. Watch this video and you'll see how four famous philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham differed in regard to their explanation of how man processes the information that he senses in the natural world. If you enjoy this kind of video and philosophy, then join us for our ongoing Study of the Summa Theologica which consists of watching an hour long video each week and then optionally joining us for a live discussion via Zoom each Tuesday evening. For information on the class visit www.studythesumma.com
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Luther wasn't a nominalist
he did admire William of Ockham
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
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?