Report Essay
Report Essay
Maimonides attacks the second argument by stating that willing something new, by a perfect
being, need not imply change. If a person decided to take a trip tomorrow but events spoiled his plans,
he will have to change his mind. Change occurred in this instance but this is not the case for God. For
example, a person decided to solve math problem tomorrow and he did it exactly as planned, it would be
misleading to say he underwent a change. He did undertake something new, to the degree that he had
intended it all along independent of external circumstances. Maimonides takes this to mean that it is
possible for a being not affected by external circumstances to will something new as long as it is part of
his original intention. This is sometimes expressed by saying that changing one's will is not the same as
willing change. So once again, the argument against creation is not decisive.
Maimonides contentions for creation are logically correct but what he truly established is the
possibility of creation, not its actuality.
2. Review God as an efficient cause via Ockhams Razor, then, discuss the universals and
nominalism. Define the nominalist influence on the modern thought.
Ockhams Razor is frequently expressed in the statement Beings are not to be multiplied beyond
necessity. It operates on the basis of the principle of parsimonythe simpler theory is more likely to be
true. Ockham's Razor never allows us to deny presumed entities; at best it allows us to refrain from
positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. In part, this is because human
beings can never be sure they know what is and what is not beyond necessitythe necessities are not
always clear to us. But even if we did know them, Ockham would still not posit that his Razor allows us
to deny entities that are unnecessary. For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything
else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through1. In short, Ockham does not
accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason2.
In the case of universal entities, Ockham's nominalism is not based on his Razor, his principle of
parsimony. Ockham does not hold merely that there is no good reason for affirming universals, so that
we should refrain from doing so in the absence of further evidence. He also holds that theories of
universals, or at least the theories he considers, are outright incoherent; they either are self-contradictory
or at least violate certain other things we know are true in virtue of the three sources just cited. For
Ockham, the only universal entities it makes sense to talk about are universal concepts, and derivative
on them, universal terms in spoken and written language. Metaphysically, these universal concepts are
singular entities like all others; they are universal only in the sense of being predicable of many.
Based on the statements above, Ockhams nominalism is seen as:
A denial of metaphysical universals.
An emphasis on reducing one's ontology to a bare minimum, on paring down the supply of
fundamental ontological categories.
1 God is a necessary entity but he is not the first efficient cause of the world and
everything in it.
2 Everything must have a reason or a cause.
A denial of abstract entities3. Ockham was or was not a nominalist in this sense. He
believed in abstractions such as whiteness and humanity, for instance, although he did not
believe they were universals.)He certainly believed in immaterial entities such as God and
angels. He did not believe in mathematical (quantitative) entities of any kind.
The defense of nominalism undertaken by William of Ockham prepared the way for various
modern nominalistic theories such as those of instrumentalism, pragmatism, semantics, and logical
positivism. Well-known nominalists include Francis Bacon, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Herbert
Spencer, and Nelson Goodman. Also, according to the philosopher of science Ian Hacking, much of
what is called social constructionism of science in contemporary times is actually motivated by an
unstated nominalist metaphysical view.
3 Ockham was or was not a nominalist in this sense. He believed in abstractions such as
whiteness and humanity, for instance, although he did not believe they were
universals.)He certainly believed in immaterial entities such as God and angels. He did not
believe in mathematical (quantitative) entities of any kind.