Nominalism – Francis’ Achilles Heal…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I’ve been thinking about doing a post about nominalism since this is where the post-conciliar church’s contemporary problems truly lie. Or at least there is a consensus forming in the Catholic camp, with which I completely agree. And by a stroke of luck, an article appeared at the National Catholic Register that did the work for me. So I will repost the article below.

So what is nominalism?

Simply stated, nominalism is the idea (error) that immaterial “objects” do not exist. An example of an immaterial object would be things like “success”, “profit” or “numbers”. With respect to the definition of “object”, the one that interests us is: the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose.  

My regular readers will remember one very important immaterial object that we have extensively discussed, namely “state of necessity” (state of exception). But I digress…

Now, the notion of nominalism was actually first defined by our favorite Franciscan “heretic”, one William of Ockham. The below post provides a great explanation of William’s thinking, so I will not go into it here. He was actually trying to do good, which is why I place “heretic” in parentheses.  But I digress again…

What is of paramount importance to understand about nominalism is that it:

divorces physical objects, those that exist externally, from those immaterial objects that exist in ones mind, yet are know through ones senses.

This interconnectedness provides the link between the Visibislium Omnium and the et Invisibilium and ties both into the Creator who made them. It is this universal concept that stands behind the LEX ARMATICUS.

For a more extensive discussion of nominalism, please see here.

Now, what makes the above debunking of the error of nominalism critical to understand for our purposes, is that the interconnectedness between the Visibislium Omnium and the et Invisibilium gives us a tool by which we can verify our observations throughout the different subsets of human activity.

One good example of just this verifiability process can be observed in yesterday’s post titled The Derivatives Trader’s Theology… In that post we observe a derivatives trader’s discussion about the VIRTUES. These VIRTUES that Nick Taleb discusses are the same VIRTUES that are defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  And it is these same VIRTUES that Stefan Molyneux discusses in the below video. What this means is that the term VIRTUE has a common meaning, with common usage across ALL the different disciplines of human activity.

Taking this train of thought one step further, by the proper application of VIRTUES, an individual can observe (and objectively measure) whether his application of a said VITRUE has been successful or not. NB: One good case of a misapplied (if ever applied) VIRTUE is the decades long War on Poverty started under the Johnson administration. (see here)

Which brings us to Francis. As most of my readers know, Francis the bishop of Rome has been making quite a large number of not only doctrinally, but likewise scientifically questionable claims over the last four years, and with ever growing frequency.

The last example of these questionable claims come in the area of global warming. At the recent meeting with President Trump, Francis gave the POTUS his “Laudato Si document” ghostwritten by one Archbishop Victor “heal me with your kiss” Fernandez

The problem that will… and should arise for the current bishop of Rome is that since he has ventured into the area of the physical sciences of the Visibilium Omnium, an area that can be objectively measured, and since his claims can now be objectively verified, the long term prospects for the survivability (read: validity) of his “works” is close to nil.

Furthermore, Francis’ “teaching office” will also need to be scrutinized with respect to how it conforms to the et Invisibilium of what is known in the behavioral sciences. These documents will need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to eradicate any errors that could have crept in.

So concluding, we can posit the following: a sizeable part of Francis’ “teaching office” cannot be supported by knowledge that we have obtained presently from the physical and behavioral sciences. This means that Francis’ “work” is not verifiable. What’s worse, this sort of “work” presently has acquired a name. And that name can be stated as:

FAKE THEOLOGY ™.

And it is the error of nominalism that can be identified as Francis’ FakeTheology’s™ Achilles Heal.

 

Takeaway question: will a future cadaver synod dig Francis out of the ground, like they did with Honorius, so that they can condemn him?

 

*****

When Did the Decline of the West Really Begin?

Once nominalism severs the sacred chain connecting all being to God, creation shrinks back from its Creator.

A common answer among conservatives is the 1960s. Some conservatives trace the problem back further, to the development of modernism, from the 19th century into the 20th. Distributists might pinpoint the Industrial Revolution, from the 18th into the 19th century. And a good case could be made for the Enlightenment, which spanned 1685-1815, or even the Protestant Reformation, starting in 1517. 

Rod Dreher, in his new book, The Benedict Option, goes back even further—to the onset of nominalism, a philosophy formulated by William of Ockham, who died in 1347. The thesis is not wholly original to Dreher—Richard Weaver, a traditional conservative intellectual, also contends that Western decline began in this way in his classic 1948 book, Ideas Have Consequences. But Dreher offers one of the most accessible summaries of what nominalism really is and why it still matters today.

Dreher’s highly anticipated book, which appeared in March, advances the thesis that the current dilapidated state of our society requires revisiting the approach of St. Benedict, widely credited as the founder of Western monasticism. But, in order to understand the solution, one must fully reckon with the problem, hence Dreher’s treatment of nominalism.

He begins with a brief sketch of the worldview of the Middle Ages, which nominalism challenged. Medieval Europeans viewed the real world—the one external to their mind and senses—was interconnected and therefore sacramental, as everything ultimately was related to God. This was innate sense of the inherent relatedness of everything is sometimes referred to as the ‘Great Chain of Being.’

This worldview was rooted not only in the sacramentalism of the Catholic Church, but also in philosophical stance, inherited from ancient thinkers, known as metaphysical realism. As Dreher explains it:

“Realism holds that the essence of a thing is built into its existence by God, and its ultimate meaning is guaranteed by this connection to the transcendent order. This implies that Creation is comprehensible because it is rationally ordered by God and a revelation of Him (Benedict Option 27).”

So a table is really a table with a purpose—to hold other objects, or a set of dinner plates. But this is not so with nominalists. For the nominalist, there is really no such thing as a ‘table.’ As Dreher puts it, “A table is just wood and nails arranged in a certain way, until we give it meaning by naming it ‘table’”—hence the term nominalism, which is from the Latin nomen, the word for name (to paraphrase Dreher’s etymology).

For the nominalist, the table has no inherent meaning—its meaning is merely something extrinsic, imposed from without. This may not seem to matter much when we’re talking about tables, but it takes on serious implications which we talk about reality in general and our place in it. If the world has no meaning, it has no purpose and it cannot point to the Creator who made it.

Now, you might be wondering, what was William of Ockham, the founder of nominalism, thinking? It seems highly dubious that Ockham, who was a Franciscan friar and theologian, set out to dismantle medieval Christendom. His was a misplaced ‘zeal to protect God’s sovereignty,’ according to Dreher:

“If the infinite God reveals Himself through finite matter, does that not imply limitation? Ockham thought so. He denied metaphysical realism out of zeal to protect God’s sovereignty. He feared that realism restricted God’s freedom of action. For Ockham, if something is good, it is because God desired it to be so. The meaning of all things derives from God’s sovereign will—that is, not because of what He is, or because of His participation in their being, but because of what He commands. If He calls something good today and the same thing evil tomorrow, that is His right (Benedict Option, 27).”

One can now readily see the theological pitfalls of this position. It means that in Genesis, when God called creation ‘good’—it was only because He said so, not because it was really good. It also contravenes the testimony of the Old Testament, where creation as seen as reflecting the beauty and goodness of God—Dreher quotes Psalm 19:2, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Finally, Ockham’s position is at odds with the reality of the Incarnation itself, along with the reality of the visible Church and the sacramental system. (Certainly it is now apparent how nominalism helped pave the way for the Protestant Reformation.)

In the context of the Christian faith, the errors and perils of nominalism may seem manifest, but what about its broader cultural implications? As Dreher explains, once the world had been emptied of inherent meaning and bore only that meaning imposed on it by God, the next big step was to replace God with man.

How and why did this happen?

The real answer, of course, is beyond our scope, but we can briefly point to it here. (See Dreher’s second chapter, “The Roots of the Crisis” for the full summary.) Once the sacred chain connecting all being to God was severed, creation shrunk back from its Creator: the world became a smaller place. This left man as the new center of attention. Again, Dreher well sums up what happened:

“In the world of art and literature, a new emphasis on naturalism and individualism emerged. The old, with its metaphysical certainties, its formal hierarchies, and its spiritual focus gradually ceased to hold the imagination of Western man. Art became less symbolic, less idealized, less focused on religious themes, and more occupied with the life of man (Benedict Option, 29).”

In this way it was only a natural transition from believing in a God who imposed meaning on things to thinking it was man who did this. We can see this mindset well-illustrated in our society’s acceptance that marriage and gender mean whatever people say they mean.

Of course, it took us many centuries and quite a few revolutions to get us from William of Ockham to today. (And, it must be noted, not everything has been downhill since then!) But understanding how it all began is the first step towards recovery and restoration. 

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Nominalism – Francis’ Achilles Heal…”

  1. For those of us who have raised children, the same environment that they were raised in, did not necessarily produce the same outcome. Each child made his or her own decisions as they reached adulthood using their free will.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Was Ockham essentially saying that God was arbitrary, capricious and could contradict Himself? I think this is what Muslims believe. Those who believe this must also believe that God is irrational and that fundamental truth does not exist. And the bottom line of all this is: Who needs God, as He must be crazy? Accordingly, Man must interpret the Bible or do away with it completely and renounce God.

    Like

    • What WofO was after what that he didn’t want to place any limits on God. What he didn’t realize is that God is rational out of his own free will.

      So he erred on the side of caution, but his error introduced a bad downstream effect into his understanding of God’s nature. And that bad effect is what is known as nominalism.

      Like

      • Jeff C. said:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve always understood that God is rational because it is His nature. In other words, it is impossible for God to choose to be anything else because His nature is pure rationality.

        Like

    • As to the “arbitrary god”, this is what is presently called the Bergoglian “god of surprises”.

      Like

    • PS In the philisophy departments presently, there is a huge fight between those who understand the nature of free will (very, very few) and those who are known as determinists. (Let’s call them by their real name: Marxists)

      The determinists claim that human behavior is wholely determined by “environment”. This has killed philosophy, making it just another post-modernist quasi-sectarian death cult. I.e. if everything is determined, why do anything? Yes?

      The proponants of free will, like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson et al, are beginning to resurrect this academic disciple through alternative media. They are drawing huge followings and the philosophy departments are taking notice.

      It is this “free will” phenomenon that is also driving the restoration of Thomism (rational scholasticism) in the church. I’m seeing many Dominicans justifying their vocations by referencing “an interest in St. Thomas Aquinas”.

      So it will only be a matter of time before the Thomists start driving the phenomenologists out of the philosophy faculties. I know for a fact that the Dominicans aready dominate most, if not all the philosophy departments in the secular universities in Poland.

      And all the above movement in the rationalist direction actually converges on the “nominalist” issue.

      I’ve even heard the term “principled rationalist” supposedly attributed to Steve Bannon in the political/economic sphere.

      So there is hope.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Free Will is influenced by the environment but not determined by it, otherwise wouldn’t everyone from the same environment make the same choices?

        Like

        • Correct.

          And since they don’t, we have free will.

          What it comes down to is a straw man argument.

          The straw man is that “everything is determined”. So people do not have choices. This is actually Marxism in disguise.

          But people still have choices (as opposed to making decisions by instinct)

          Of course there is determinism. Limited. It exists in nature. Sun comes up in the East and sets in the West. That is a deterministic process.

          God created a system that is deterministic.

          But His creation that was made in His image, has free will. This is how we know that we are different from all other of His creaters.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s