Ockham?

[Etienne]

Are there people interested to actually discuss philosophical literature? I am proposing a discussion on Ockham as it is relevant for the Forum book club, but I don't want this to be a monologue, that means participants should try to read Ockham, or studies of him and refer to the text.

[byquist]

Ockham's Razor, you mean? As in "Simple is beautiful."

[Etienne]

Well Ockham's razor is only one notion, Ockham is much broader than that.

The "standard" wording for Ockham's razor is: Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.

[byquist]

That standard wording sounds like sound advice; thanks. Will try to implement.

[blp]

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem is the original I think. It's not directly concerned with beauty, though beauty might be a bi-product.

'Fraid I don't know anything more about William of Ockham.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

That standard wording sounds like sound advice.It is very sound advice: That principle, believe it or not, is something I often come across at work: It states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

Not bad for a 14th century Franciscan friar to have an impact on 21st century Quality Engineering, is it? :thumbs_up

Oh, by the way: Hanlon's razor is pretty good too: See my signature.

/Claes

[Etienne]

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem is the original I think. It's not directly concerned with beauty, though beauty might be a bi-product.

'Fraid I don't know anything more about William of Ockham.

Ockham never formulated it in these words, it came afterwards to "sum up" nicely Ockham's Razor.

[Il Penseroso]

I just read a bit about him on wikipedia, and his ideas concerning concepts as unreal objects seem very interesting and modern. I hadn't ever heard of him before glancing at this thread, though I was familiar with the razor, just not as attributed correctly.

I'll try to find time to look him up in a philosophy textbook I've got, but no guarantees.

[thom]

Does this come down to judging what is nessersary and unnessersary? If he was a friar, hes bound to be in favour of an aesthetic rejection of anything but a simple basic existence, and anything but simple basic actions. I think its just common sense as an abstract philosophical mantra

[Etienne]

Ockham's original purpose of the razor, was a reduction of ontology to it's strict logical necessity. The principle has then extended to much broader horizons, but it's always meant as a reduction to the logical necessity. It doesn't have the pretension to necessarily be or an ethic or aesthetic principle, although it is not excluded. It is, in itself, a logical tool.

(by the way, I think you meant ascetic instead of aesthetic?)

[Il Penseroso]

But what, in the soul, is this thing which is a sign? It must be said that with regard to this there are various opinions. For some say that it is nothing but a certain fiction produced by the soul. Others say that it is a certain quality existing subjectively in the soul, distinct from the act of understanding. Others say that it is the act of understanding. And in favor of these there is this to be said: what can be explained on fewer principles is explained needlessly by more. Everything, however, which is explained through positing something distinct from the act of understanding can be explained without positing such a distinct thing. For to stand for something and to signify something can belong just as well to the act of understanding as to this fictive entity; therefore one ought not to posit anything esle beyond the act of understanding.


-- from the Sum of All Logic, bolding mine

He doesn't seem a man who fully explored the logical result of his statements, though I suppose very few of those Medieval thinkers really did. Here, I'm pretty sure, he's talking about the use of universal forms, but I think a little more could be said here...

Same perhaps with his separation of the spheres of science and theology. Science appears pretty self-sufficient and all the better without supernatural referencing, but what is the result of following faith at odds with reason? (these days I think we have more evidence of the discrepancy)

[Etienne]

He doesn't seem a man who fully explored the logical result of his statements, though I suppose very few of those Medieval thinkers really did. Here, I'm pretty sure, he's talking about the use of universal forms, but I think a little more could be said here...

The quote refers indeed to what is called the universals. We should have to go back in the context (perhaps you can give a reference, if we used an etext, it could be easier http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/writings/v2/w2/w2_32/v2_32.htm). Here he is attacking the realists, obviously, and especially the use of universals as reals in logical arguments. It could be a direct attack on Anselm's ontological proof, although, but if we could use a common translation it would be easier as we need to go back in the text here.


Same perhaps with his separation of the spheres of science and theology. Science appears pretty self-sufficient and all the better without supernatural referencing, but what is the result of following faith at odds with reason? (these days I think we have more evidence of the discrepancy)

You confound science and reason here, they are two separate things.

[thom]

"Ockham's original purpose of the razor, was a reduction of ontology to it's strict logical necessity."
So do you think it worked then? Care to define the nessesity of the ontologist?
The beauty for me is that the nessesity is not actually a nessesity, its a process..the process cannot be a nesesity, but it can nessesitate..it can point towards but never actually define what it leads too, triply so in this case with logical added to imply there is some reason and strict to appear in some way meassured. Its a most pleasing abstraction.. but logic cannot attain to the nessersary simplicity needed for 'the act of understanding' due to its own self-imposed confusion, so it simplifies..thats why the beauty of zen buddhism is the disruption of the logical mind to provoke and induce the very freedom from it...it makes sense and dosent simultaneously, applying to whoever applies it and making them a simpleton.
"The principle has then extended to much broader horizons, but it's always meant as a reduction to the logical necessity."
Expansion..reduction..abstract notion of nessesity, zen.
"It doesn't have the pretension to necessarily be or an ethic or aesthetic principle, although it is not excluded. It is, in itself, a logical tool."
'It has no pretentions' just sounds like an excuse for never applying his theories and so never having them tested.
I wonder too if he considered the many of lifes problems not aided by simplicity, i.e law?
I think he has expressed the mystical non-sense logically, whereas if he had common-sense he'd be worried that one has to be practical in an overly complex world, and that strictly hypothetical pronouncements dont tend to apply when they're actually tested.

[Etienne]

"Ockham's original purpose of the razor, was a reduction of ontology to it's strict logical necessity."
So do you think it worked then? Care to define the nessesity of the ontologist?
The beauty for me is that the nessesity is not actually a nessesity, its a process..the process cannot be a nesesity, but it can nessesitate..it can point towards but never actually define what it leads too, triply so in this case with logical added to imply there is some reason and strict to appear in some way meassured. Its a most pleasing abstraction.. but logic cannot attain to the nessersary simplicity needed for 'the act of understanding' due to its own self-imposed confusion, so it simplifies..thats why the beauty of zen buddhism is the disruption of the logical mind to provoke and induce the very freedom from it...it makes sense and dosent simultaneously, applying to whoever applies it and making them a simpleton.
"The principle has then extended to much broader horizons, but it's always meant as a reduction to the logical necessity."
Expansion..reduction..abstract notion of nessesity, zen.
"It doesn't have the pretension to necessarily be or an ethic or aesthetic principle, although it is not excluded. It is, in itself, a logical tool."
'It has no pretentions' just sounds like an excuse for never applying his theories and so never having them tested.
I wonder too if he considered the many of lifes problems not aided by simplicity, i.e law?
I think he has expressed the mystical non-sense logically, whereas if he had common-sense he'd be worried that one has to be practical in an overly complex world, and that strictly hypothetical pronouncements dont tend to apply when they're actually tested.

Wow... I think you are very much both confused and confusing. What is zen buddhism doing here? :lol: Go preach elsewhere, or keep to the topic. And I won't even count the amount of things you concluded from my posts, conclusions that are non sequitur. I said, for example that it doesn't have "necessarily" aesthetic or ethic pretension and you concluded that it has no pretensions and that it is never used... like if aesthetics and ethics were everything...

So you don't believe in "logic's logic" ok well, but we don't care, we're discussing Ockham, we're not discussing you. I'm kind of annoyed at these new-age people lurking who always try to drag the attention to how "smart", "special", "deep" and mystic they are (I won't say what I think they are or look like)... Just make a topic about yourself and your so-called philosophy and if people are interested they will discuss.

[thom]

I merely shared my own observations of Ockham compared with another school of thought. Admittedly one i feel an affinity for, but i would'nt call that preaching, just an alternative perspective. Your abstract pronoucements seem learned, I wont mention your manners. :)

[Etienne]

My point is that your post did not address anything concerning Ockham, and comparing him to Buddhism (they are not two "school of thought" they are completely different matters) is like comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare, compare to Aristotle, Anselm, Dun Scot, or even more modern philosophers, like Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Chomsky, etc. Now there can be points of comparison, and will be relevant.

Also you're post was close to undecipherable.

[blp]

Ockham never formulated it in these words, it came afterwards to "sum up" nicely Ockham's Razor.

Oh. Thanks.

[byquist]

Claes, Yes I've heard of Hanlon's and it is a pleasant rule. I run into a decent amount of stupidity. Do you know about The Sokol Affair, I think it is called (Sokol the mathematician having some fun)?

They say I hail from Sweden if one goes way back, great-great somebody. They took the northern treck across the US to Wisc, then Wash. The American film "The Vikings" was an early favorite; know it? Are you north or south in that big country. What is life like -- a lot of snow? Any fjords or is that Norway? Excuse my ignorance in advance.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Claes, Yes I've heard of Hanlon's and it is a pleasant rule. I run into a decent amount of stupidity.Who doesn't? :lol: Besides, I have to admit that I sometimes am the one doing the stupid things :blush:


Do you know about The Sokol Affair, I think it is called (Sokol the mathematician having some fun)?Sokal? Yes, I have, but only by hearsay. Now that you mention it, I have to have a closer look.


They say I hail from Sweden if one goes way back, great-great somebody. They took the northern treck across the US to Wisc, then Wash. The American film "The Vikings" was an early favorite; know it? Are you north or south in that big country. What is life like -- a lot of snow? Any fjords or is that Norway? Excuse my ignorance in advance.I thought you were Swedish, and you certainly carry a Swedish name, as opposed to yours truly.... :)


I have heard about "The Vikings", but I have not seen it.
I live about 100 miles due east of Stockholm, which puts me in central Sweden population wise, and towards the south, geographically.
This winter has been our warmest one on record (and it has been recorded continually since 1756), with very little snow. I actually removed the studded tyres from my bike (which I ride to work all year round) today.
The fjords can be found in Norway, yes, but we do have several rather large archipelagos.


/Claes

[J.D.]

I'll talk Ockham. The "razor" is hardly what he himself would've considered his greatest achievement. If I still remember correctly, he wrote about thes eucharist and was a forerunner of the Reformation, a challenger of the pope -- deeds that better define his importance.

[George_Berkeley]

I thought Ockham's texts were only in Latin. Plus, I don't even think Ockham's texts are even mainstream, like several other theologians.

[Etienne]

I thought Ockham's texts were only in Latin. Plus, I don't even think Ockham's texts are even mainstream, like several other theologians.

His texts were only in Latin... until they got translated in several other languages... besides, what do you mean by mainstream?

[johann cruyff]

His texts were only in Latin... until they got translated in several other languages... besides, what do you mean by mainstream?

I suppose Roscelin,Anselm of Canterbury or Scotus Eriugena would be considered scholastic mainstream?Maybe even Avicenna and Averroes?

[Etienne]

Then Ockham is also mainstream.

[johann cruyff]

Then Ockham is also mainstream.

Absolutely.As a matter of fact,I think more people have heard of him than of Roscelin,for instance.