Nom Nom Nominalism

Last updated on: December 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm by willduquette

Nom Nom Nominalism 2014-12-23T16:23:15-05:00 willduquette

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Every once in a while, on more philosophically inclined blogs, I read about the evils of nominalism; and since it has a bearing on the Aquinas series I’m posting on Mondays I thought I’d say a few things about it.

According to Thomas and Aristotle, every being has an essence, what it is: a cat, a dog, a rock, a flower, a human being. Thomas and Aristotle agree with Plato that these essences are universals: all cats are cats because they share the single essence “being a cat”. However, Thomas and Aristotle disagree with Plato that universals exist in an independent World of Forms. Rather, a universal exists in reality only as part of the things that share that essence. Catness exists only in cats. (And in the Hunger Games, but that’s another story.)* But universals can also exist as concepts in our intellects, and in a similar way in the mind of God.

Later scholastic philosophers, such as William of Ockham, said no, there are no true universals; rather, there are only shared names. Each thing we call a cat has its own distinct individual essence; but individual cats are similar in non-essential ways and so it’s convenient for us to come up with some shared name, e.g., “cat”.

Later thinkers have run with that idea and extended it to say that, in fact, the names we give things determine reality and that reality is a thing constructed by humans.

I’m probably expressing that badly, because I think it’s nonsense on the face of it, and it’s hard to be fair to something you think is nonsense, even if there’s a core of possible sense in it.

I bring all of this up, because I think there’s a reason why nominalism seems so plausible to so many. I think it’s because most of the objects around us are artifacts, rather than things of nature.

Consider a chair, that artifact par excellence. Does it have an essence? Certainly: it’s a thing that one person can sit on. But it’s also a constructed thing. It has an essence, but it isn’t a substance in the way that a cat is. If you take a cat to pieces, you don’t have a cat any more; you have a mess. But you can take a chair to pieces, repaint it, and then put it back together.

The thing is, the essence of artifacts is often slippery. Consider a couch. Is it a chair? No; it seats more than one. That’s what makes it a couch. It’s chair-like, but not a chair. OK; now consider the seating you usually find in airports: long objects, for seating multiple people, with armrests between each place. Are they couches? No; you can’t lie down on them. Are they chairs? No; they seat multiple people. In a way, they are couch-chairs; or chair-couches. It begins to seem like there’s no universal notion of “chair” or “couch” here; just human choice.

But this isn’t because there are no universals; it’s because these are artifacts, products of human design. A person who designs a chair designs it to a particular purpose; and likely there are many more specific purposes than there are designers. And each of these purposes leads to a slightly different notion of chair, and yes, they are all human-defined and human-constructed.

Artifacts, it turns out, are a lousy basis for the investigation of the deep things of metaphysics, because they are too fuzzy—and not in a good way.

In short, I think that pondering the nature of the essence of artifacts leads one naturally to nominalism in a way that pondering the nature of natural objects like plants and animals does not.

* No, I’m not sorry.

Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse

nominalism vs. moderate realism

Previous Post

September 9, 2014

Review: Master and Commander, by Patrick O'Brian

Next Post

September 11, 2014 Black Tuesday is on Thursday This Year

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Admin App o' the Morning Ask the Dogmat Believing Thomas Bits of Fiction Blasts from the Past Bootstrapping the Interior Life Catholic Mom Christian Living Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse Dominicana Evangelii Gaudium Interviews It Was A Dark and Stormy Night Links to This and That Lumen Fidei Meme Watch On Writing Operation Gratitude Pedant Errant Photography Quill Random Barkings S'Mary's World Shakers of Salt Software Development The Dog Whistler The Dogmat Sez Third Orders Thomas Aquinas Uncategorized Vikings at Dinos Woof Guide to Cinema Woof Guide to History Woof Guide to Literature Woof Guide to Obscure Catholic Music Woof Guide to Philosophy Woof Guide to Popular Music Woof Guide to Technology Woof Guide to Theology Words I Wish I'd Written Works For Me

Select a Month September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I gathered materials for the temple but was told my son would build it instead. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Nathan David Zadok Solomon