Jon A., List: JA: It is only the extreme nominalist who turns Ockham's Razor into Ockham's Chainsaw Massacre ...
Quote of the year (so far)! Thank goodness I was not drinking anything when I first read it. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Peircers, > > The following post from about this time 2 years ago pretty well summarizes > my current view of the whole nominalism vs. realism controversy. To be as > brief as possible, I do not see the issue as reflecting some cosmic battle > between good and evil, but simply a matter of what rules are best to adopt > for the direction of our ingenuities. > > We are all nominalists, or Ockhamists, to the extent that we recognize the > practical sensibility of guiding our inquiries according to one or another > principle of economy. It is only the extreme nominalist who turns Ockham's > Razor into Ockham's Chainsaw Massacre, but there the problem lies with the > extremism, not with the practical utility of the Razor. > > We are all realists to the extent that we do not go about kicking > everything > that “looks like a rock” just to see if it “really is a rock”. But not all > descriptions describe anything and problems arise when we confuse the being > of a sign for the sign of a being. > > Regards, > > Jon > > Pragmatism About Theoretical Entities > ===================================== > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/20/pragmatism-about- > theoretical-entities-1/ > > By theoretical entities I mean things like classes, > properties, qualities, sets, situations, or states > of affairs, in general, the putative denotations of > theoretical concepts, formulas, sentences, in brief, > the ostensible objects of signs. > > A conventional statement of Ockham's Razor is — > > ☞ “Entities shall not be multiplied beyond necessity.” > > That is still good advice, as practical maxims go, but > a pragmatist will read that as practical necessity or > utility, qualifying the things that we need to posit > in order to think at all, without getting lost in > endless circumlocutions of perfectly good notions. > > Nominalistic revolts are well-intentioned when they > naturally arise, seeking to clear away the clutter > of ostentatious entities ostensibly denoted by > signs that do not denote. > > But that is no different in its basic intention than > what Peirce sought to do, clarifying metaphysics > though the application of the Pragmatic Maxim. > > Taking the long view, then, pragmatism can be seen as > a moderate continuation of Ockham's revolt, substituting > a principled revolution for what tends to descend to > a reign of terror. > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
