In my salad days1 at Los Angeles Valley College circa 1991, I found myself in an advanced logic class that was a hive of intellectual debates and thought-provoking discussions. We used the work of Benson Mates, an American philosopher, as our core text. Mates is well-known for his work in the field of logic. His most notable "Elementary Logic," first published in 1965, has since become a standard text in the field.
One of the key features of Mates's approach is his emphasis on formal languages and the importance of symbolization in understanding logical arguments. He meticulously demonstrates how arguments in natural language can be translated into formal language, allowing for clearer analysis and understanding. Mates also deals with the principles of logical deduction, exploring both the syntactic aspects (rules governing the form of logical expressions) and the semantic aspects (meaning and truth values).
One sunny afternoon, the lecture was centered around the theme of philosophical simplicity, and that's when I was first introduced to Occam's Razor. The professor described Occam's Razor as a principle attributed to the 14th-century English philosopher William of Ockham, suggesting that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. He emphasized that it was less about the ease of an explanation and more about eliminating unnecessary complexities to uncover the truth.
As the professor helped us better formulate our understanding of the conception, I felt a surge of excitement. This was my first encounter with a philosophical principle that so eloquently encapsulated this idea. The class discussion that followed was vibrant. We applied Occam's Razor to various philosophical puzzles and real-life scenarios. I found myself participating eagerly, experimenting with the principle in different contexts, amazed at its applicability and power.
The discovery of Occam's Razor, marked a pivotal moment in my academic life. It was a powerful reminder that amidst the complexities of life and academia, the simplest answers are often right before our eyes.
Williqm of Ockham didn't explicitly state the principle in the form we know it today, which is often summarized as "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Instead, his writings frequently employed this principle in his philosophical arguments, advocating for simpler explanations and avoiding unnecessary assumptions.
The closest formulations of the principle from Ockham's work can be found in his "Summa Logicae" (c. 1323) and other works, where he argues against the multiplication of entities or assumptions without sufficient reason. The term "Occam's Razor" itself, however, didn't come into common use until much later.
Realism v. Nominalism
I got to learning more about this medieval philospher. Among the ideas attributed to him was another most interesting notion. Ockham argued against the realist notion of universals.
Where realists posited that universals have a real existence, Ockham contended that only individuals exist and that universals are mere names ('flatus vocis') without any corresponding reality. This stance marked a significant shift from the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions, emphasizing a more individualistic understanding of reality.
It marked a movement toward a more formalized understanding of what is referred to today as nominalism. Nominalism is a philosophical doctrine concerning the problem of universals, which are abstract concepts or properties thought to be shared by multiple things or entities.
The central tenet of nominalism is the rejection of the real existence of universals and abstract entities outside of human cognition and language. We nominalists argue that only specific, individual objects exist in reality, and there are no abstract entities or universals existing independently of these objects.
Universals or general terms (like "redness," "beauty," or "goodness") are seen by nominalists as mere names or labels (hence "nominalism" from the Latin "nomen," meaning "name"). These terms are used for convenience to group together individual objects with similar characteristics, but they do not correspond to any real, independent entities.
Nominalism stands in contrast to realism, which posits that universals do have a real existence, either in the external world or in some abstract realm.
The debate between nominalism and realism has significant implications in areas such as metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and the philosophy of language. It shapes how one understands the nature of reality, the structure of knowledge, and the function of language.
To reiterate, nominalism is a perspective in philosophy that emphasizes the primacy of individual objects and denies the independent existence of universals, viewing them as mere linguistic constructs rather than real entities.
Realism, in this context, asserts that universals or abstract concepts have a real existence, independent of human thought or language. For realists, entities like "redness," "beauty," or "goodness" exist independently of the red objects, beautiful things, or good actions we observe. These universals are seen as timeless and unchanging. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle are often associated with different forms of realism. Plato, for instance, argued for the existence of a realm of Forms or Ideals, where these universals exist in their purest form.
So if you had to choose, which perspective would you subscribe to? Nominalism or Realism? Leave a your response as a comment below…
"Salad days" is a term coined by William Shakespeare in his play "Antony and Cleopatra," written around 1606. In the play, the character Cleopatra uses this expression in Act 1, Scene 5, referring to her youthful days. She says, "My salad days, when I was green in judgment, cold in blood." In this context, Cleopatra is reminiscing about her younger years, characterized by a lack of maturity and experience ("green in judgment") and a more impulsive, less passionate nature ("cold in blood"). The term "salad days" is thus used to describe a time of youthful inexperience, often accompanied by enthusiasm, idealism, and naiveté.