18 FEBRUARY 1998
REALISM AND NOMINALISM
In this assignment, you will learn to define and discuss the following terms:
It is not an easy matter to say what Western Europe in the Middle Ages did, developed, or created that made it evolve in a manner so different from that of the other civilization of the Old World and eventually to dominate the world politically, economically, and even culturally. Many people have advanced their own ideas. Some said that it was Christianity, and that their faith gave Europeans a higher moral and ethical sense than other peoples. The German attempt, during the Second World War, to kill all of the Jews in Europe suggested that this idea was somewhat lacking. Others held that God had chosen the Europeans to civilize the other peoples of the world and that this heavy task was the White Man's Burden. The treatment of their colonial peoples by the European powers was long recognized, at least by a few, as representing something less that a "civilizing influence." When I was young, it was commonly held that the scientific and technical genius of the White race was the basis of its success, but then the Japanese, Indians, and others began to demonstrate that they were just as adept at science and technology as Whites when given the opportunity.
So one may choose what one wishes and ask if it made a real difference. One might select military technology, representative government, the idea of the integrity of the individual, the frontier experience, the suffering that medieval society endured, or any of a number of other things. I would choose two, one a basic concept of philosophy and the other a new economic organization. This lesson will consider the basic concept of philosophy, Realism versus Nominalism In order to understand the issues involved, one must approach the matter carefully, understanding the essential terms.
There are various means of deciding what is true. Not all give the same answer. Therefore, a society must put more faith in one approach than another. The order in which various approaches are accepted determines the pattern of thought of the society.
The ancients preferred reason and logic above observation and experience, because the senses can easily be deceived, and because they lacked the equipment to enhance the senses, make precise observations, and record the data. They also noted that, although one can deduce various laws governing triangles, spheres, circles, and the like, such things do not exists in nature and so are outside of human experience. That is, there can be no triangle in nature found with exactly 180 interior degrees, any more than one can find a precisely straight line.
In their use of reason, they preferred demonstrative logic, the demonstration of derivations from known principles. The basic operation in demonstrative logic is the syllogism. The syllogism consists of three parts:
a. The major premise: Socrates is a man, which simply states that Socrates belongs to a category of object which we call "man." The medieval philosophers called such categories universals, which is a term that you should remember
b. The minor premise: all men are mortal. All categories are defined by their characteristics, some of which are essential and some of which are accidental. The accidental characteristics of the category of "man" include such things as height, IQ, skin color, number of arms and legs, and so forth. Essential characteristics might be such things as bipedal, mammal, and rational. The minor premise simply specifies one of the essential characteristics of the category "man."
c. The conclusion: Socrates is mortal. The major premise is based upon the observation that "Socrates" displays the necessary essential characteristics to place him in the category of "man." If so, then Socrates has all of the essential characteristics of the category.
There is a problem with this. If no perfect example of a member of a universal exists in the world of experience, how can people be able to judge what things fits into a universal and what do not? In short, how do people learn about universals if not through experience? Plato said that universals have a real existence independent of human beings and that the individual soul "experiences" these universals, of "forms" in the special realm in which the soul resides before birth. The individual is then born with a "memory" of these forms. In short, Plato argued that people are born with innate patterns of thought. Although Aristotle tried to demonstrate that the concepts of the universals could be derived from experience, Platonism continued to dominate the Greek and Roman worlds. But the rationalist system could not explain the fall of Rome or the mysteries of the Christian faith and was supplanted by philosophies that could.
Saint Augustine of Hippo in the City of God indicated the limits of human experience and of human imagination. The only enduring principle was the will of god and the only way of knowing this was faith and revealed wisdom. He was not really concerned with the nature of universals or the bases of reason. He stated that reason is better than experience only because even animals can experience.
Augustine's preference for faith over reasons and experience led to a rejection of attempting to discover the nature of the universe. The basic message of scripture, the primary authority, was that human minds cannot comprehend god's plan. Consider the Book of Job. When Job asked God why both the evil and the just must suffer, God answered him with the blast of Where were you when I created the whale?
The knowledge revealed by God -- the inspired words of the scriptures, the fathers of the church, the decrees of church councils, and some papal edicts-- collectively formed the canon. Nothing could be true if it conflicted with this base of wisdom. Only the word of God could be trusted.
This pattern of belief lasted for almost six hundred years, but began to crumble when Western scholars obtained translations of Aristotle's works on logic and began to apply the principles of logic to the field of theology. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) wrote a book called sic et non (yes and no), in which he demonstrated that the canon was full of contradictions. If the canon cannot be relied upon, then we must rely upon reason. The senses can be fooled, so experience is fallible and must always be tested against reason.
The translation of all of Aristotle's manual of logic into Latin stimulated the application of logic to all matters in all fields. A long discussion ensued as to the proper use of logic. Some held that logic should be followed wherever it led one, while others countered that logic cannot be accepted as true if it weakened or contradicted the faith.
Interestingly enough, some people attacked the logicians by attacking Aristotle. By showing that Aristotle's observations of nature were wrong, they inferred that his logic might also be wrong. In this process of investigating natural phenomena, they laid the basis for modern science.
The real debate, however, was over the nature of the universal. The Realists said that it was real thing, independent of human will, and the Nominalists said that the universal was merely a name ("nomen") that people gave to a category of experience. In modern terms, we would argue about whether universals are objectively real or only social constructs.
This is not a silly matter. Here are a couple of examples to think about.
If the Realists are right, then categories of truth, such as beauty and justice, are independent of human will and we cannot shape our world, only discover it. Nobody has a right to their own opinion, because everything is like mathematics. Your opinion is either right or wrong. If the Nominalists are right, then people can decide what is just and what is not, and there are no such things as eternal principles. But that means that, again, you don't have a right to your own opinion. What counts as being right is what most people believe is right, and you need to learn what most people accept so that you can live and work in a world that is a social construct. But, if that is true, the majority rules absolutely and the minority has only those rights that the majority think it right to give them. And so on, and so forth...
The traditional categories of the Realists could not absorb the flood of new information that came with the era of discovery in the period 1500-1900. To what category does the duckbilled platypus belong? It has scales, so it's a fish, but it has feathers, so it's a bird, but it gives birth to its young alive and has hair, so it's a mammal.
The Nominalists were confronted with things of which there was no previous experience on which to base the construction of the necessary new categories, while the Realists needed more information to determine whether these things represented newly-discovered categories and, if so, what the essential characteristics of those categories were. The debate was largely abandoned and Europeans began the long task of collecting, describing, and measuring things.
So what's the point of all of this? As we shall see later, the observation and measurements of that era led to the discovery that much of the world about us follows physical laws that operate independently of our wishes. The question arose whether other things, things commonly considered to be acts of human will - - such as buying and selling, falling in love, being successful in one's work, going to war or staying at peace, loving your neighbor or killing him -- might not also be governed by unchangeable physical laws operating independently of human will. You might well ask why this should be considered such a big deal. Didn't Lao-tzu say the same thing in the Tao te-ching a couple of thousand years earlier? Yes, that is true, but Lao also said that, since one cannot change those laws that run the universe and the people in it, one might as well relax and go with the flow of nature. The problem with that approach is that it is difficult to know what the laws of nature are or in what direction they are flowing.
What the Realist and Nominalist controversy of Western Europe accomplished was this: the Realists accepted the idea that the universe, or much of it, was governed by laws the nature of which one could discover by the use of reason, while the Nominalists constantly tested those laws to see whether or not they were actually laws or simply hypotheses. Both agreed that, if one could discover the nature of the natural forces of the universe, one could use those forces to one's advantage. Rather than simply going with the flow as Lao-tzu advised, Europeans intended to try to swim with the current, if you'll pardon the overdrawn metaphor.
To tell the truth, I have searched the web and come up only with a scattering of presentations for philosophy classes that I believe that you would find even more confusing that today's essay. So there will be no required or recommended assignments for today. Instead, I would like you to think about the material you have been given and make an effort to use your on-line discussion list to talk it over with your colleagues. Remember that your participation in these lists will count for 15% of your grade. This is the sixth week of the semester, and many of you have not yet made a single contribution.