ACPQ and Ockham

[Khalid]

I just received the current issue of the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, only to find the entire 200-page issue sullied by a sympathetic treatment of the proximate cause of the sundering of Christian unity, that exponent of many dark methods and doctrines, that arch-nemesis of the Angelic Doctor, the arch-nominalist William Ockham.

And this is a magazine normally dedicated to good Thomism, although it is not dogmatically Thomistic.

Does anyone else subscribe or read ACPQ? What are your thoughts on this quarter’s issue, William Ockham, and especially the dastardly articles therein (although I’m all for academic freedom), namely, William of Ockham on the Freedom of the Will [lol, seriously, that’s the title, even though Ockham believed in free will about as much as Martin Luther in De servo or as Gottschalk] and Happiness, and, unbelievably, “]Authentic”] Tradition and the “]Right”] to Dissent: William of Ockham on the Eucharist - his eucharistic doctrine was just about as orthodox as Berengar of Tours before his recantation, or of Ratramnus enemy of [Edit: Paschasius] Radbertus.

I want to call the editor and groan. O, what happened?*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I just received the current issue of the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, only to find the entire 200-page issue sullied by a sympathetic treatment of the proximate cause of the sundering of Christian unity, that exponent of many dark methods and doctrines, that arch-nemesis of the Angelic Doctor, the arch-nominalist William Ockham.

And this is a magazine normally dedicated to good Thomism, although it is not dogmatically Thomistic.

Does anyone else subscribe or read ACPQ? What are your thoughts on this quarter’s issue, William Ockham, and especially the dastardly articles therein (although I’m all for academic freedom), namely, William of Ockham on the Freedom of the Will [lol, seriously, that’s the title, even though Ockham believed in free will about as much as Martin Luther in De servo or as Gottschalk] and Happiness*, and, unbelievably, “]Authentic”] Tradition and the “]Right”] to Dissent: William of Ockham on the Eucharist - his eucharistic doctrine was just about as orthodox as Berengar of Tours before his recantation, or of Ratramnus enemy of [Edit: Paschasius] Radbertus.

I want to call the editor and groan. O, what happened?

I don’t read ACPO but Edward Feser has a lot to say about Ockham in " The Last Superstition. He described him more properly as a Conceptionalist and described his philosophy along with that of some others in the approximate time frame as laying the ground work for the corruption of Scholastic Philosophy and the founding cause of the current secularist/mechinist/materialist philosophical mess we are in.

 

[Qoeleth]

I just received the current issue of the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, only to find the entire 200-page issue sullied by a sympathetic treatment of the proximate cause of the sundering of Christian unity, that exponent of many dark methods and doctrines, that arch-nemesis of the Angelic Doctor, the arch-nominalist William Ockham…

I want to call the editor and groan. O, what happened?

Have you read much Ockham. Before you call the editor, I suggest you spend a little time reading him.

Personally, I see very little to object to in his writing. He is hardly an arch-nominalist- but rayther saying that names refer to mental concepts, and that mental concepts (as is tautologically evident) exist in the head.

As for his voluntarism- he emphasizes the freedom of God. God creates and defines standards of ‘goodness’. God is not bound by human standards of logic, or ‘morality’.

Though Ockham was a brilliant logician, he recognised the limitations of the scholastic method in approaching the wholly transcendent Divinity. As he said, '“only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

Sounds a lot like Thomas, perhaps?: “Praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Have you read much Ockham. Before you call the editor, I suggest you spend a little time reading him.

Personally, I see very little to object to in his writing. He is hardly an arch-nominalist- but rayther saying that names refer to mental concepts, and that mental concepts (as is tautologically evident) exist in the head.

As for his voluntarism- he emphasizes the freedom of God. God creates and defines standards of ‘goodness’. God is not bound by human standards of logic, or ‘morality’.

Though Ockham was a brilliant logician, he recognised the limitations of the scholastic method in approaching the wholly transcendent Divinity. As he said, '“only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

Sounds a lot like Thomas, perhaps?: “Praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui.”

No, it does not sound like St Thomas at all. Certainly God is not bound by any human standards, and certainly there are limitations even to Thomistic philosophy. The problem was that William was reacting to a Scholastic Philosophy which was already being corrupted. The obvious necessary reform was to go back to the fundamental principles of Thomism. Instead he jettisoned the whole package and paved the way for modern secularism, mechanism, and materialism where skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism are rampant, and where morality has been reduced to some type of social convention. Edward Feser in the Last Superstition gives Ockham a good going over. Also see :
newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

 

[Qoeleth]

No, it does not sound like St Thomas at all. Certainly God is not bound by any human standards, and certainly there are limitations even to Thomistic philosophy. The problem was that William was reacting to a Scholastic Philosophy which was already being corrupted. The obvious necessary reform was to go back to the fundamental principles of Thomism. Instead he jettisoned the whole package and paved the way for modern secularism, mechanism, and materialism where skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism are rampant, and where morality has been reduced to some type of social convention. Edward Feser in the Last Superstition gives Ockham a good going over. Also see :
newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

While I make no claims to being an expert on Ockham, naturally (as a Catholic and fan of Fransiscan thought), I have read his surviving writings. But I don’t have time for secondary literature, which , unfortunately, often degenerates into unsubstantiated generalisations and caricatures.

If you care to identify anything in Ockham’s writings which you believe paved the way for atheism, I would be most interested.

 

[Khalid]

The extreme voluntarism (which seems almost borrowed from that man who did his best to insure the already-floundering Islamic tradition could never pull itself up, al-Ghazali [Algazel]), and, most especially, his emphasis on God’s will being primary to God, superior to his intellect (for a crass characterization).

Now, tracing how exclusive emphasis on will and power over intellect and order lead to scientism is fairly obvious (at least to me), but beyond the scope of a 2,000 word forum post.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While I make no claims to being an expert on Ockham, naturally (as a Catholic and fan of Fransiscan thought), I have read his surviving writings. But I don’t have time for secondary literature, which , unfortunately, often degenerates into unsubstantiated generalisations and caricatures.

If you care to identify anything in Ockham’s writings which you believe paved the way for atheism, I would be most interested.

I would suggest you read The Last Superstition by Edward Feser ( skip pg 146, too explicit ). He notes that the popular Athiest, Hitchens, RIP, has nothing but paise for Okham. The point is that many of his arguments have been and are today used by Athiests in one way or another. His famous Okaham’s razar is often quoted as an argument against Thomas’ Five Ways. And of course Thomas had already raised the issue in one of his articles in the Summa Theologica, and even Aristotle had a used a form of it. Yes, I know Ockham was a Fransiscan. That doen’s mean a Fransiscan has to defend him, because I don’t see how a rational Catholic of any type could defend his anti-philosophy.

 

[Qoeleth]

I would suggest you read The Last Superstition by Edward Feser ( skip pg 146, too explicit ). He notes that the popular Athiest, Hitchens, RIP, has nothing but paise for Okham. The point is that many of his arguments have been and are today used by Athiests in one way or another. His famous Okaham’s razar is often quoted as an argument against Thomas’ Five Ways. And of course Thomas had already raised the issue in one of his articles in the Summa Theologica, and even Aristotle had a used a form of it. Yes, I know Ockham was a Fransiscan. That doen’s mean a Fransiscan has to defend him, because I don’t see how a rational Catholic of any type could defend his anti-philosophy.

It seems to me that the principal point of Ockham’s philosophy are:

1. The primacy of Scripture and revelation (and what can be deduced therefrom)- as the ultimate source of truths of faith. (cf. Letter to the Friars Minor)
2. That God is supremely free, that He transcends constraints of logic and human conceptions of wrong and right. Instead God defines the principles of logic and morality, and can change them. So, God could conceivably will an action which, by human standards, might see**m wrong- but, by virtue of His will, it would be right. (cf. Sent. II, Q. 15)
3. That names indicate concepts (when I describe something as a dog, I am saying it conforms, to the concept of ‘dogness’) Such concepts exist only in the mind. (cf. Opera Philosopica II). Is this not obvious? New concepts and words can be created by language- other cultures and languages have different concepts and names- old concepts can fall out of use.
4. Very important, the false Avignon Pope, John XXII, condemned the Fransiscan belief in the renounciation of propetry as heretical, and sought to repress the Order, especially the Spirituals. Ockham fought boldly against this proposition, and showed that the Pope HImself only has authority insofar as He (the Pope) is in communion with the Gospel and the Church.

All the evidence suggests that Ockham was very devout, austere, and willing to risk his own life in defence of the Gospel and the values of St. Francis.

One could just as easily propose a narrative that it was Thomas’ mistaken contention that God could be ‘proved’ by reason which has lead to the rise of atheism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me that the principal point of Ockham’s philosophy are:

1. The primacy of Scripture and revelation (and what can be deduced therefrom)- as the ultimate source of truths of faith. (cf. Letter to the Friars Minor)
2. That God is supremely free, that He transcends constraints of logic and human conceptions of wrong and right. Instead God defines the principles of logic and morality, and can change them. So, God could conceivably will an action which, by human standards, might see**m wrong- but, by virtue of His will, it would be right. (cf. Sent. II, Q. 15)
3. That names indicate concepts (when I describe something as a dog, I am saying it conforms, to the concept of ‘dogness’) Such concepts exist only in the mind. (cf. Opera Philosopica II). Is this not obvious? New concepts and words can be created by language- other cultures and languages have different concepts and names- old concepts can fall out of use.
4. Very important, the false Avignon Pope, John XXII, condemned the Fransiscan belief in the renounciation of propetry as heretical, and sought to repress the Order, especially the Spirituals. Ockham fought boldly against this proposition, and showed that the Pope HImself only has authority insofar as He (the Pope) is in communion with the Gospel and the Church.

All the evidence suggests that Ockham was very devout, austere, and willing to risk his own life in defence of the Gospel and the values of St. Francis.

One could just as easily propose a narrative that it was Thomas’ mistaken contention that God could be ‘proved’ by reason which has lead to the rise of atheism.

Again, consider my post #7. If modern Athiest polimicists claim Ockham as the inspiration for elements of their doctrine, one can only conclude that, willingly or not, he provided amo for the Athiest cause. Edward Feser makes this very clear.

I understand you are a fan of Ockham. That is fine. I do not question his sincerity or his faith. But I do think his philosophy was absolutely wrong. I rest my case on what Feser and others before him have said. To jetteson Thomas would be very dangerous since it would deprive the Church of reaosn. Indeed it would deprive the Church of " common sense " in that the ordinary man looks at the universe and says, " God exists and orders the universe." Thomism is nothing but common sense on an organized, intellectual level. That is its great attraction and usefulness ( in my opinion).

newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

 

[Qoeleth]

Again, consider my post #7. If modern Athiest polimicists claim Ockham as the inspiration for elements of their doctrine, one can only conclude that, willingly or not, he provided amo for the Athiest cause. Edward Feser makes this very clear.

I understand you are a fan of Ockham. That is fine. I do not question his sincerity or his faith. But I do think his philosophy was absolutely wrong. I rest my case on what Feser and others before him have said. To jetteson Thomas would be very dangerous since it would deprive the Church of reaosn. Indeed it would deprive the Church of " common sense " in that the ordinary man looks at the universe and says, " God exists and orders the universe." Thomism is nothing but common sense on an organized, intellectual level. That is its great attraction and usefulness ( in my opinion).

newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

I respect your opinion. However, in reply to the OP, I think it is a good thing that a Catholic journal presents a Catholic, positive re-appraisal of Ockham.

In fact, it might serve to reclaim him from ‘new atheists’. Personally, I doubt that Richard Dawkins has even read Ockham, and certainly they would not find a genuine philosophical ally in him.

 

[Khalid]

They likely know only his voluntarism (and, even myself, have not read all of his works, as you quoted one in your above post, that I have never heard of), but that voluntarism meshes very nicely with the evolutionary might-makes-right, “nature is its own law, and evolution is its will” kind of philosophy spouted in The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion (Dawkins), Breaking the Spell (Dennett), and The Moral Landscape (Harris).

As far as the “mental concepts” - in my first post, I likely was insufficiently clear in failing to draw a distinction between the two shades of falsity, conceptualism and nominalism - I disagree strongly that it is a tautology, or at all self-evident, that what we think of in terms of universals, are present only in the mind (although, they are present also in the mind, or a concept of them is also present in the mind: conceptualism takes the thinking about realism, and divorces it from reality); I wouldn’t mind having a discussion about it (even though it’s off-topic, and Qo[h]eleth is essentially the only one to jump in here with an answer to the questions posed in the original post), but men have been debating it since at least the age of Aristotle.

Conceptualonominalism seems to gain ground in philosophy, if only because “metaphysics” has come to denote, for the most part, in a culture and academia drowning in scientism, “philosophy of nature”, and that true metaphysical/ontological questions - such as the problem of universals - are not tackled with the urgency that they once were. In any case, a staunch Platonist can still hold his own against two Aristotelian Thomists, ten conceptualists, or the entire MIT Department of Philosophy worth of nominalists.

Who was it who said, “I care not for natural theology, for if it beginneth not with Deism, it invariably forceth Deism unto theology”?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I respect your opinion. However, in reply to the OP, I think it is a good thing that a Catholic journal presents a Catholic, positive re-appraisal of Ockham.

In fact, it might serve to reclaim him from ‘new atheists’. Personally, I doubt that Richard Dawkins has even read Ockham, and certainly they would not find a genuine philosophical ally in him.

Disagree with the first point. The anti-philosophical attitude has done great harm. The Church in her wisdom has chosen to disagree with his position in this regard. Historically the Church recognizes the intellect as a gift of God to be used in the service of God. That is why she has always appealed to the great philosophical minds of the past ( Aquinas, Augustine, etc. ) to provide an intellectual frame work in defense of the faith.

Naturally, the New Athiests and the earlier ones have not read Ocham. Don’t expect them to either.

And as far as his faith is concerned, I don’t think that has ever been doubted.

Pax