Advertisement

Nominalism and Constructivism

  • Mia Gosselin
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 215)

Abstract

One of the problems in philosophy that occurs time and again is the relationship between thought, language and reality. It can be considered either from an epistemological point of view or from an ontological one. In the Middle Ages three irreducible solutions were proposed, a realistic, a conceptualistic and a nominalistic solution. The realistic theory has found its continuation in idealism, conceptualism has mainly been continued in rationalism and nominalism in empiricism. The fundamental question to which these theories propose different answers is not whether we should accept or reject the existence of abstract entities, or even of an infinite number of such entities, but, as said, is about the link between thought, language and reality.

Keywords

Ontological Commitment Everyday Language Logical Empiricism Elementary Experience Concrete Thing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    J. Largeault, Enquête sur le nominalisme, Nauwelaerts, Louvain, 1971, p.68–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Gilson, La Philosophie au Moyen-Age, Payot, Paris, 1962, p.640: “Joignons à cette sévère conception de la démonstration un goût très vif pour le fait concret et le particulier, qui devait s’exprimer dans un des empirismes les plus radicaux que l’on connaisse, et nous aurons les deux données initiales, qui nous aideront le mieux à comprendre sa philosophie toute entière”.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinberg, Abstraction,Relation and Induction, p.4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibidem, p.3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World, University of California Press,Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967, p.50, § 27.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibidem, p.107, § 66.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibidem, p.23Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf. J. Ruytinx, La Problématique de l’Unité de la Science, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1962, p.217.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibidem, p.223.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibidem, p.220.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Gilson, La Philosophie au Moyen Age, p.529.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    lbidem, p.649: “Il y aura donc chez lui un sentiment très vif de l’indépendance absolue du philosophe en tant que tel et une tendance extrêmement accusée à reléguer tout le métaphysique dans le domaine du théologique, et un sentiment, non moins vif, de l’indépendance du théologien, qui, sur les vérités de la foi, se passe aisément du secours caduc de la métaphysique”.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Leff, William of Ockham. The Metamorphosis of Scholastic Discourse, Manchester University Press / Rowman and Littlefield, Manchester, Totowa 1975, p.322: “Ockham, it seemed, did not write his projected commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle and he left no other work on this subject. His references to metaphysics in the Ordinatio and the Logic, particularly as they concern the notion of being, present avery incomplete picture. Before, however, we are led to conclude that the absence of any developed theory of metaphysics leaves a gap in Ockham’s system, it is as well to examine what he does say and whether he has any place for a full-fledged independent metaphysics. If we begin with his view of being it may be recalled that he treated the concept of being on the one hand as a transcendental term which when understood univocally was the most universal of all concepts; as such it had no real signification since it refers to nothing in particular. On the other hand, being could be predicated equivocally of real individuals by means of the ten categories; it was then signified by the ten different ways in which individual beings could be denoted”.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W.V.O. Quine, The Ways of Paradox, Random House, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World, p.295, § 182.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quine, Ibidem.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W.V.O. Quine, “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology”, in: Quine, The Ways of Paradox, p.127.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W.V.O. Quine, From aLogical Point of View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964, p.l.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W.V.O. Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia Univ. Press, N.Y. and London, 1969, p.51.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W.V.O. Quine, Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960, p.233.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quine, Ontological Relativity, p.49.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quine, The Ways of Paradox, p.128.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibidem, p.128.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quine, Word and Object, p.VII.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World, p.49 § 27.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    lbidem, p.50, § 27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mia Gosselin
    • 1
  1. 1.Belgium

Personalised recommendations