According to Ockham’s ontology, Universals
do exist, but only insofar as they are concepts in human mind. There are just
particulars in the world. Why? Why does Ockham make new nominalism's way? Why does he think that there are no universals in the world?
Realists think that if ‘Socrates is an
animal'’ is true, there must be two real things, ‘Socrates’ as particular and
‘animal’ as universal nature in the particular, Socrates. The teacher Socrates,
who Plato saw, is one particular or two particular? If one thing consists of
particular (Socrates) and universal nature (animal) in particular, Do Socrates
and his universal nature make together one person? First of Ockham’s
ontological project is to make our ontological world simple. To do it, Ockham
thinks universals don’t help us understand our really ontological world, and
there is no necessity of universals in ontology.
The ontological world that Ockham saw
consists of two real things, substance and quality. Universals, therefore,
isn’t in the world but only concept in the mind.
In Ockham’s World, there are only two real
tings, substance and quality.
written by Daechilius (Thomas Philosophia Schola)
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기