Nominalism in philosophy is ... Nominalism and realism in philosophy

Medieval philosophy, namely her favorite daughter - scholasticism - many imagine as a groundless dispute between people in cassocks on the topic of how many devils fit on the tip of the needle. This understanding came to us from the Renaissance. Then it was customary to show the past era in a more black light than it really was. But it was then that the main components of modern scientific colloquiums and conferences were born, as well as the entire apparatus for writing dissertations and studies. Nominalism in philosophy played a special role in the history of thinking. This direction became the basis for future research into nature and rationalism in methodology. But let's try to understand this complicated question.

"Shole" - what does this mean?

Medieval philosophy developed during the period of establishing feudal relations. Even in the days of the Carolingian Renaissance - that is, at the earliest stage - it has already acquired those features that are now known to us. The Church for Western Europe of that time was the basis of the unity of the Christian world. Since the whole outlook of medieval people was religious, the philosophical questions posed and resolved had a corresponding nature. If patristy justified the dogmas established by the church, then scholasticism commented and systematized these conclusions. Therefore, it became the main direction of medieval thought - in fact the basis of philosophy was based on it. The very name of this trend suggests that, first of all, it developed in monastic schools, and later in universities.

The main features of scholasticism

In total, three periods of development of this direction are distinguished. The first is early medieval scholasticism, from the late-ancient thinker Boethius to Thomas Aquinas. Then comes the second period. There, they include mainly Thomas himself and his followers. And, finally, the late scholasticism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which was mainly the object of criticism of the Renaissance figures. The foundations of the philosophy of scholasticism are discussions on the main problems of that time. First of all, this knowledge and faith, then - mind and will, essence and existence, and, finally, a dispute about universals. Here at last we will stop. After all, it is precisely a dispute between realism and nominalism.

What it is?

The problem of universals, which is one of the main discussion issues of the time, about which many scientists have broken spears, is as follows. Realists were supporters of the fact that the general concepts, as the fashionable in the Middle Ages believed Plato, actually exist. And nominalism in philosophy is the opposite phenomenon in the history of thinking. Its representatives believed that common (universal) concepts are just names of the properties of individual things, their names (in Latin nomines).

Famous Realists

The assumption of the existence of universals was one of the most fashionable in the history of medieval philosophy. Therefore, most of the masters were realists before the beginning of the fourteenth century. This was, for example, John Scotus Eriugena, invited to teach to the imperial court in the era of the Carolingians. From his point of view, there is no difference between true religion and real nature. Therefore the criterion of truth is Reason. And everything that seems to us material, is actually spiritual. Realists include the English archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. He recognized that the mind is lower than faith, but above the will, the essence is the main thing, not the existential. Therefore, he considered common concepts to be real outside of things. Good, he said, exists outside good deeds, truth is beyond the correct concepts, and justice is beyond judgments. The realist was Albertus Magnus (Bollstedtsky). He believed that universals exist threefold - in the mind of God, in the things themselves and after them. However, the problem of nominalism and realism, or rather, the ratio in favor of the first direction, has changed since the thirteenth century, namely from the beginning of the study of nature.

Conciliators

How did they treat representatives of the opposite tendency? Prior to Aquinas, nominalism in philosophy is something like heresy. Here, for example, John Rossellin. He believed that there are only separate things, and concepts are sounds, illusions of speech. But since he was told that such ideas can lead to the conclusion that there is no God, he had to give up his views. Pierre Abelard tried to reconcile the disputants in the twelfth century . He wrote that certain things exist, and this is irrefutable. But they are similar to each other. This resemblance is in our mind, like their names. On the other hand, God contains in himself the images of things He was about to create. The reconciler was also Thomas Aquinas. In principle, he repeats the ideas of Albert the Great, only inclines them a little bit in the opposite direction. Things existed in the mind of God realistically, and in the human mind their names already exist nominally. Only people can make mistakes. And God sees the truth.

The nominalism of the Franciscans. Roger Bacon

The Oxford school from the end of the thirteenth century became a stronghold, from which a medieval nominalism set off on a victorious march through Europe. The English Franciscans always had a weakness for this philosophical tendency. In addition, in their midst, exact sciences and the study of nature began to develop. Therefore, they became the main critics of both realism and classical scholasticism. So, Roger Bacon wondered how one could judge something without knowing mathematics. Not authority, not formal logic, not references to Scripture, but only experiment is the main scientific method. Separate things are better and more truthful than any concepts, and experience is more valuable than any logic.

Duns Scot

This Oxford philosopher is one of the moderate nominalists and followers of Aristotle. He criticized Thomas Aquinas, arguing that there is one pure form - this is God. There are no others like that. All the rest is a unity of form and matter, even souls and angels. Since the main thing in God is His will, this accident is the leading one in man. Nominalism and realism in Scott's philosophy occupy approximately the same place. Will, desire above all Mind. God, if he wanted, would have created not such a world, and a completely different morality. Therefore, universals can exist only in things, as the basis of their similarity. Through individual objects we can know their essence. In the mind of God, there are no universals - He can at any time remake everything as he pleases.

Occam and his razor

But perhaps the most famous nominalist is William Ockham - the inventor of the magnifying glass and the law of refraction of light. God can not be known - His existence can only be an object of faith. The same with universals. The subject of knowledge can be exclusively real things, and method - experience. Nominalism in philosophy is the only right direction, the others "multiply entities without necessity." This is the principle of the famous "Occam's razor". This philosopher is considered even an extreme nominalist. Sharing the ideas of Scotus, Occam considered God "unlimited arbitrariness." The Creator does not need essences and universals - He can create any quality without them. Therefore, general concepts exist only in our minds - God creates without any ideas, and He does not need crutches. Universala creates a human brain for our convenience. God created only the tendency of the human mind to go from the particular to the general. Therefore, universals are only signs and terms. It was this view that later became generally accepted.