Ive read so much about universals and its getting old. Not really but I just think I need to take a break. Anyway, I read William of Ockham and realized he was a strong advocate for Aristotelian ideology in many ways. He believed that universals relied on particular substances and that particular substances relied on each other to make universals. I think? When I started to read more and more, I realized that it was a lot harder to understand his points than I thought it would be. Some things seem simple, but I think thats only because I have read so much Aristotle that it seems like a breeze. I feel like sometimes he said that universals can be particulars and that they also cant. I think they can because they are particular in its significance, or in its work of signifying. And they cant because they cant be what it is predicated on, or else it wouldn't be predicated on anything. I feel like the "second intention" is like the primary substance from Aristotle and the "first intention" is the secondary substance...and then there's the whole predicate and subject thing. The dog is green means that green is modifying the dog, and this may be way deep but its almost like in Plato, the dog is modifying the green. Haha, that doesn't make sense but I can almost see how that could work if we were talking about the essence of green. Even though I know forms cannot really modify or be modified more than likely.
I think its easier to understand William of Ockham's ideology about universals being that of ones mind, because he explains it like a mental language. It makes sense to me, but then when he starts adding all the rules and extra detail it gets more complicated...but it wouldn't be philosophy if it weren't complicated.
I feel like the gist of Ockham's views on universals was very similar to Plato's. The universal is more of a concept than a tangible thing. I believe, and I may be totally wrong here, but I think that what he was saying is that the universal is only universal in that it represents several objects. The universal of "dog" is only a universal because it represents several dogs. However, he goes on to say that the universal of "dog" doesn't really exist, because really, when we think of the universal "dog" we're actually just thinking of several particular dogs. In other words, it's the order of things that is the problem: Particular dogs don't borrow traits from the universal "dog," but the universal "dog" borrows all of its traits from our experience of particular dogs. This becomes evident when you think about different breeds of dogs common to different parts of the world. If you asked someone who lived in a cold climate and had only seen dogs native to that region to describe the universal dog, they'd describe the kind of dog that lived there - one that resembled a husky, perhaps. However, if you asked someone who had lived in a different environment to describe the universal dog, they'd describe it quite differently - maybe describing something like a golden retriever. Their concepts of the universal "dog" are based on their individual experiences. Sorry for rambling, and sorry if I just made it more confusing. It's a pretty hard concept to grasp, and I'm still trying to really get my head wrapped around it.
ReplyDelete