![]() ![]() For Ockham thinks that this ontological position is the consequence of an even more fundamental error in his opponents' semantic theory: a radically mistaken conception of how our words and the concepts that render them meaningful are related to the things they represent. ![]() However, Ockham's disagreement with this position is not simply a matter of his espousing a different ontology. On the contrary, regardless of the question whether there are some universal entities other than our universal terms (be they written, spoken or mental terms), the question here is whether we have to admit distinct particulars falling under our universal terms in each of the ten categories. to such most general genera there are subjected individuals that are really distinct from the individuals of another most general genus of which is properly and directly predicated for example, we can truly assert: `This is when' pointing to the relation which is caused by the motion of the first movable in the inferior things, so that, if that individual had a distinct proper name imposed on it, one could just as truly respond to the question: `What is it?' by saying: ` when', as one can reply to the question `What is it?' asked about a man, by saying: `A substance'." Īs should be clear even from this brief passage, the disagreement between Ockham and his realist opponent here does not concern universals. Indeed, the unknown author of a work written against Ockham's logic (characteristically entitled: "A very useful and realist logic of Campsal the Englishman against Ockham"), writes as follows: One of his main complaints against "the moderns" -as he is wont to call his opponents -is that they treat the categories as comprising ten mutually exclusive classes of distinct entities. Ockham's treatment of the ten Aristotelian categories plays a crucial role in his innovative nominalist program. OCKHAM'S "REDUCTIONIST ONTOLOGY" OF THE CATEGORIES 6. Concrete Terms The Two-Name Theory of Predication 5. Connotative Terms Common Supposition of Abstract vs. OCKHAM'S ALTERNATIVE SEMANTICS Ockham's Semantic Triangle Common Personal Supposition of Absolute vs. THE ONTOLOGICAL COMMITMENT OF THE "VIA ANTIQUA SEMANTICS" 4. Abstract Common Terms The Inherence Theory of Predication 3. "VIA ANTIQUA SEMANTICS" The Semantic Triangle Supposition of Common Terms Supposition of Concrete vs. Ockham's Semantics and Ontology of the Categories By Gyula Klimaġ. Some critics of Occam’s razor, however, state that the principle is an oversimplification of the complexities of real life and often rules out creative thinking.Ockham's treatment of the categories is the principal element of his innovative ontological program The principle is also commonly applied in modes of reasoning in philosophy, math, and religion-and, of course, The Simpsons in 1994, when Lisa cites Occam’s razor to dismiss some outlandish hypotheticals. ![]() Occam’s razor compels us to form the simplest hypothesis that is consistent with the data available. Many folks first encounter Occam’s razor in school when learning about the scientific method and learning about how to create testable and falsifiable hypotheses. We can’t 100% rule out that it didn’t happen. Not a goose disguised as a duck that infiltrated the flock. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, says Occam’s razor, it’s probably a duck. Hamilton credited William of Ockham, a 14th-century English monk and philosopher, with formulating his namesake, Occam’s razor: “More things should not be used than are necessary.” In other words, when trying to make sense of some phenomenon (especially between two competing alternatives), it’s best to avoid the more elaborate explanation-shave it off, like a razor. The phrase Occam’s razor is recorded in 1852 by the Scottish metaphysician Sir William Hamilton. Just as we all strive to pinch our pennies, Occam’s razor teaches us that we should hold off on our hypotheticals. Occam’s razor is grounded in the idea of parsimony-being thrifty with your resources. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |