Since no one assumes that every term has something real corresponding to it, the above definition of 'nominalism' is too broad to be of any use. Let us hope he does not weasel out of this challenge. Would any philosopher say that inĮvery word has a referent? Edward needs to give examples of philosophers who hold that 'nobody' in (1) and 'and' in (2) have referents. How is Nobody doing these days?") (1) is easily analyzed so as to remove the apparent reference of 'nobody.' And the same goes for a long list of other synsemantic or syncategorematical expressions. ("Well, I'm glad to hear that at least one person showed up. No one will take 'nobody' in (1) as a name. For few if any philosophers hold that for each word in a sentence there is a corresponding referent. The trouble with the above explanation of nominalism is that it will be accepted by almost all philosophers, including plenty who would not identify themselves as nominalists. Thus he implies that there exist terms which do not have something real corresponding to them.Ī net that snags every fish in the sea brings in too large a catch.
![ockham nominalism ockham nominalism](http://brewminate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Ockham01.jpeg)
He implies it is a common one, by attributing to the moderns and by the fact he mentions it all. What does he mean? Well he says that it is an error. See also an early definition of nominalism here. ('Radix est multiplicare entia secundum multitudinem terminorum, et quod quilibet terminus habet quid rei quod tamen abusivum est et a veritate maxime abducens').
![ockham nominalism ockham nominalism](http://www.numericana.com/fame/ockham.jpg)
He says grumpily that this is erroneous and leads far away from the truth. I am taking my lead from a principle that William of Ockham neatly formulates in his Summa Logicae book I, chapter 51, where he accuses 'the moderns' of two errors, and says that the root of the second error is “to multiply entities according to the multiplicity of terms and to suppose that every term has something real ( quid rei) corresponding to it”. I should first explain what I think the nominalist program is. Comments are enabled.Īt this stage, I should discuss Peter Lupu’s objections (mostly in the extended comment on Vallicella’s blog here) to the nominalist program.
![ockham nominalism ockham nominalism](http://wellsofgrace.com/biography/hymnwriter/bernard.jpg)
His words are in black, mine are in blue. The following is a response to "Ockham's Nominalism" by our London sparring partner, Edward Ockham.