Medieval philosophy, namely her beloved daughter - scholasticism - many imagine as a groundless debate between people in robes on the subject of how many devils fit on the tip of a needle. This understanding came to us from the Renaissance. Then it was customary to show the past era in a blacker light than it actually was. But it was precisely then that the main components of modern scientific colloquiums and conferences arose, as well as the entire apparatus for writing dissertations and studies. A special role in the history of thinking was played by nominalism in philosophy. This direction has become the basis for future research on nature and rationalism in methodology. But let's try to figure out this confusing issue.
“Schole” - what does it mean?
Medieval philosophy took shape during the establishment of feudal relations. Back in the days of the Carolingian Renaissance - that is, at the very early stage - it already acquired the features that we now know. The church for Western Europe at that time was the basis of the unity of the Christian world. Since the whole worldview of medieval people was religious, the philosophical questions that posed and resolved had a corresponding nature. If patristics substantiated the dogma established by the church, then scholasticism commented and systematized these conclusions. Therefore, it became the main focus of medieval thought - after all, the foundations of philosophy were based on it. The very name of this trend suggests that, first of all, it developed in monastic schools, and later in universities.
The main features of scholasticism
There are three periods of development in this area. The first is early medieval scholasticism, from the late antique thinker Boethius to Thomas Aquinas. Then comes the second period. It mainly includes Thomas himself and his followers. And, finally, the late scholasticism of the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries, which was mainly the object of criticism of Renaissance figures. The foundations of the philosophy of scholasticism are discussions on the main problems of that time. First of all, this is knowledge and faith, then - reason and will, essence and existence, and, finally, the debate about universals. Here on the last we will stop. After all, it is he who represents the dispute of realism and nominalism.
What it is?
The problem of universals, which is one of the main discussion questions of the time, about which many scientists were breaking spears, is as follows. Realists advocated that common concepts, as Plato believed to be fashionable in the Middle Ages, actually exist. And nominalism in philosophy is the opposite in the history of thinking. Its representatives believed that general (universal) concepts are just the names of the properties of individual things, their names (in Latin nomines).
Famous realists
The assumption of the existence of universals was one of the most fashionable in the history of medieval philosophy. Therefore, most of the masters before the fourteenth century were realists. These included, for example, John Scott Eriugen, invited to teach at the imperial court in the Carolingian era. From his point of view, there is no difference between true religion and true nature. Therefore, the criterion of truth is Reason. And everything that seems material to us is actually spiritual. The realists include the English archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. He acknowledged that reason is below faith, but above will, essence is the main thing, not existence. Therefore, he considered general concepts to be real outside of things. Good, he said, exists outside good deeds, truth is outside correct concepts, and justice is outside court decisions.
Albertus Magnus (Boldstedtsky) was also a realist. He believed that universals exist in three ways - in the mind of God, in things themselves and after them. However, the problem of nominalism and realism, or rather, the ratio in favor of the first direction, has changed since the thirteenth century, namely from the beginning of the study of nature.
Conciliators
How did you feel about representatives of the opposite trend? Prior to Aquinas, nominalism in philosophy is a kind of heresy. Here, for example, John Roscellinus. He believed that there are only individual things, and concepts are sounds, illusions of speech. But since he was told that such ideas could lead to the conclusion that there was no God, he was forced to abandon his views. Pierre Abelard tried to reconcile the debaters in the twelfth century . He wrote that certain things exist, and this is incontrovertible. But they are similar to each other. This likeness is in our mind, as are their names. On the other hand, God contains images of things that He was about to create.
The conciliator was Thomas Aquinas. In principle, he repeats the ideas of Albert the Great, only inclines them a little to the other side. Things existed in the mind of God really, but in the mind of man their names already exist nominally. Only people can be wrong. But God sees the truth.
Nominalism among the Franciscans. Roger Bacon
The Oxford school from the end of the thirteenth century became a stronghold from which medieval nominalism set off for victorious march across Europe. English Franciscans always had a weakness for this philosophical tendency. In addition, exact sciences and the study of nature began to develop in their midst. Therefore, they became the main critics of both realism and classical scholasticism. So, Roger Bacon wondered how to judge something without knowing the math. Not authority, not formal logic, not references to Scripture, but only experiment is the main scientific method. Some things are better and truer than any concepts, and experience is more valuable than any logic.
Dunes scot
This Oxford philosopher belongs to the moderate nominalists and followers of Aristotle. He criticized Thomas Aquinas, arguing that there is one pure form - this is God. There are no others. Everything else is the unity of form and matter, even souls and angels. Since the main thing in God is His will, this incident is leading in man too. Nominalism and realism in Scott's philosophy occupy approximately the same place. Will, desire is above all Reason. God, if he wanted to, would not create such a world, and a completely different morality. Therefore, universals can exist only in things, as the basis of their similarity. Through individual objects we can know their essence. There is no universality in the mind of God - He can redo everything at any moment as he wants.
Ockham and his razor
But perhaps the most famous nominalist is William Ockham, the inventor of the magnifier and the law of refraction of light. God cannot be known - His existence can only be an object of faith. The same is with universals. The subject of knowledge can be exclusively real things, and the method can be experience. Nominalism in philosophy is the only right direction, the rest "multiply entities unnecessarily." This is the principle of the famous Occam's razor. This philosopher is considered even an extreme nominalist. Sharing the ideas of Scotus, Ockham believed God to be "unlimited arbitrariness." The Creator does not need essences and universals - He can create any quality without them. Therefore, general concepts exist only in our mind - God creates without any ideas, and He does not need crutches. The universals are created by the human brain for our convenience. God created only the tendency of the human mind to go from the particular to the general. Therefore, universals are only signs and terms. It was this point of view that later became generally accepted.