John of Salisbury points out a problem that still plagues philosophy to this day. Philosophy stands at such a disconnect with the common man today (as I suspect it did in the past), because of philosopher's obsession with the complexity of material rather than the matter by which it is presented. John writes that the material presented can be "unintelligible," which I suspect is a symptom of the elitist nature of philosophy (a symptom quickly being embraced by scientists today). He seems to have great concern with categorizing things, and shows his frustration for other philosophers corrupting the meaning of such categories. Perhaps he is obsessed with the discovery of truth and believes that its discovery lies in streamlining the categories of things.
For Abelard universals are "totally devoid of meaning". A universal only applies to a group that shares a universal trait. However, a universal names a group as well as the individuals in that group - this is already problematic. Abelard goes on to elaborate on this problem which I believe is one of the most important in philosophy. The understanding of this directly effects the fabric of language. The use of attaching concepts to words. This debate can put that to rest once and for all.
Its interesting how universals are defined as quoted by Aristotle. He states that they are things that can be predicted by many. This is an interesting epistemological claim at a time prior to Descartes. I am curious to read more about what exactly he means by a "nature" that is predictable. Do es this mean that we all have a sort of inherent knowledge of the world? it is interesting how he mentions the inquiry about whether a word would exist if there were no genus of that word in existence, using the example of rose.
The distinction Abelard makes in reference to universals and particulars is interesting as well as he points out that universals do not have an actual referent while particulars do. This sets up a compelling way to consider the relationship to universals as real or nonexistent or what state they have if they do exist.
1. John of Salisbury seems to be making an ambitious attempt to rework the complexity of universals to something more simple and intuitive. He condemns the way philosophy has complicated the matter of universals and goes back to cite the Aristotelian conception that universals are notions and that as a notion it should be a simple comprehension or of intuitive understanding and simple mental comprehension.
2. It is interesting how at the end of the Abelard section of our reading Abelard presents a compatibility between Plato's and Aristotle's views on universals. He states that they are basically saying the same thing. Stating that "what Aristotle denies to be actually the case, Plato, the investigator of the nature, ascribes to a natural capacity. Consequently there is no real disagreement between them"
1.) The Salisbury reading made me wonder just how it could be that people could be so convinced that their metaphysical reality is correct that they had to resort to contorting linguistics to prove their point. Even secular universals have these dangourus undercurrents. I am reminded of innovations in logic that occurred when dialectical materialism was the only philosophy that could be studied in some parts of the world. 2.) As for the Abelard reading, I found his ability to openly question these premises refreshing and bold. I also realized just how much what I think takes his innovations for granted (that universals have no subjects). At the same time I can’t help but think that this is just obvious on the face of it and wonder just how much of the dark age philosophy was just keeping the existing tradition alive through disciplined scholarship with little focus on innovation.
1.) In Salisbury's reading he talked about universals are not subject to corruption. This was interesting to hear because he took a piece from Boethius where he says that things that "are" continue as the same of their nature. The example he gave with the river gave me a better understanding because it seems like he's trying to say that the ideas cannot destruct. 2.) Abelard talks about the universals and how it is only one. I find it interesting how he says that they cannot be more than one. He talks about how man could be associated to the nature which it is imposed on. I wonder why he says certain words are particulars, and others that are individuals are universal.
The first reading by Salisbury was interesting to see him go back to Aristotle t define universal. The knowledge that we have of these is confusing to me because I'm not sure what he is claiming when it comes to our knowledge of the world around us in terms of this and notions.
Abelard n the other hand was more clear and concise on his stance that universals are devoid of meaning. though, particulars do. Universals are clearly distinguished from particulars in Abelard's reading which was more satisfying to read than Salisbury
John of Salisbury is surprisingly easy to read, and although he references other philosophers and the history of arguments, he criticizes the highly technical style of writing that alienates those unfamiliar with all of those historical arguments. I imagine he gets away with this because his audience is not primarily new scholars, but rather the so called experts in the field. Still, I think for the modern reader at least, his writing is more approachable than many of his contemporaries.
Regarding Abelard, I am pleased to read something that more closely resembles my own intuitions on a subject. Abelard’s thesis that universals are words, is easy to grasp onto because that means that they need not exist in any way beyond the mind. While I think I depart from Abelard, I personally think that a metaphysics improves as it declines in size, so a metaphysics that doesn’t rely on naturally occurring/existing categories is superior to one that does. If universals are words, and words are created by man and only mean something to each other and nothing without man, then they must be human constructs and therefore not metaphysical in nature.
1. I had a hard time differentiating between John of Salisbury's summary and commentary on the thoughts of others and his own arguments. I'm not sure that I understand the context or nature of this whole discussion, and I think that illustration with examples would make it easier to understand.
2. I found the selection from Abelard to be more productive and interesting. It seems to me that a discussion about the existence of genera and species has more to with the nature of existence than the nature of genera and species.
John of Salisbury points out the elitist attitude of the philospher. I think it relates to the last philosphers we read that have a ranking system for humans, where philosphers sit ontop. This adds to the disconnect non philosphers have with the philosphers because they come off as pompous and all knowing.
I find the universals argument to be very intresting. While its said universals are non existant and only belong to connected groups i can't help but think about cultural norms. This is what is belived today by many scholars in multiple fields.
I also enjoyed how John of Salisbury addresses Aristotle and the issues he has with his ideas of universals in a clear and sophisticated way. The idea of notions and that they are derived from their previously perceived form in need of unravelment is an interesting as which was a typical view of Aristotle, however John of Salisbury's view of ideas prevailing through permanence like Seneca's can be found to be more believable in my opinion.
In the reading Salisbury brings up a subject that I have known to be true but never really thought about. The average person today as well as the average person of the path does not really feel a connection to or even understand philosophy. Often times philosophy is difficult to understand instead of breaking it down into simpler terms philosophers just leave their work as is. Making it seem as if you need to be of a certain status to learn philosophy. Salisbury believes the philosophy is a subject that is meant for everybody not just a small group of so called intellectuals.
In Abelard’s reading he talks about how there is only one universals. I found this idea of only one universal existing to be very interesting. In addition, he talks about how universals are lack meaning. The comparison between universals and words is a good comparison. Just like universals words do not have to be physically seen to be understood.
John of Salisbury points out a problem that still plagues philosophy to this day. Philosophy stands at such a disconnect with the common man today (as I suspect it did in the past), because of philosopher's obsession with the complexity of material rather than the matter by which it is presented. John writes that the material presented can be "unintelligible," which I suspect is a symptom of the elitist nature of philosophy (a symptom quickly being embraced by scientists today). He seems to have great concern with categorizing things, and shows his frustration for other philosophers corrupting the meaning of such categories. Perhaps he is obsessed with the discovery of truth and believes that its discovery lies in streamlining the categories of things.
ReplyDeleteFor Abelard universals are "totally devoid of meaning". A universal only applies to a group that shares a universal trait. However, a universal names a group as well as the individuals in that group - this is already problematic. Abelard goes on to elaborate on this problem which I believe is one of the most important in philosophy. The understanding of this directly effects the fabric of language. The use of attaching concepts to words. This debate can put that to rest once and for all.
Its interesting how universals are defined as quoted by Aristotle. He states that they are things that can be predicted by many. This is an interesting epistemological claim at a time prior to Descartes. I am curious to read more about what exactly he means by a "nature" that is predictable. Do es this mean that we all have a sort of inherent knowledge of the world? it is interesting how he mentions the inquiry about whether a word would exist if there were no genus of that word in existence, using the example of rose.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction Abelard makes in reference to universals and particulars is interesting as well as he points out that universals do not have an actual referent while particulars do. This sets up a compelling way to consider the relationship to universals as real or nonexistent or what state they have if they do exist.
1. John of Salisbury seems to be making an ambitious attempt to rework the complexity of universals to something more simple and intuitive. He condemns the way philosophy has complicated the matter of universals and goes back to cite the Aristotelian conception that universals are notions and that as a notion it should be a simple comprehension or of intuitive understanding and simple mental comprehension.
ReplyDelete2. It is interesting how at the end of the Abelard section of our reading Abelard presents a compatibility between Plato's and Aristotle's views on universals. He states that they are basically saying the same thing. Stating that "what Aristotle denies to be actually the case, Plato, the investigator of the nature, ascribes to a natural capacity. Consequently there is no real disagreement between them"
1.) The Salisbury reading made me wonder just how it could be that people could be so convinced that their metaphysical reality is correct that they had to resort to contorting linguistics to prove their point. Even secular universals have these dangourus undercurrents. I am reminded of innovations in logic that occurred when dialectical materialism was the only philosophy that could be studied in some parts of the world.
ReplyDelete2.) As for the Abelard reading, I found his ability to openly question these premises refreshing and bold. I also realized just how much what I think takes his innovations for granted (that universals have no subjects). At the same time I can’t help but think that this is just obvious on the face of it and wonder just how much of the dark age philosophy was just keeping the existing tradition alive through disciplined scholarship with little focus on innovation.
1.) In Salisbury's reading he talked about universals are not subject to corruption. This was interesting to hear because he took a piece from Boethius where he says that things that "are" continue as the same of their nature. The example he gave with the river gave me a better understanding because it seems like he's trying to say that the ideas cannot destruct.
ReplyDelete2.) Abelard talks about the universals and how it is only one. I find it interesting how he says that they cannot be more than one. He talks about how man could be associated to the nature which it is imposed on. I wonder why he says certain words are particulars, and others that are individuals are universal.
The first reading by Salisbury was interesting to see him go back to Aristotle t define universal. The knowledge that we have of these is confusing to me because I'm not sure what he is claiming when it comes to our knowledge of the world around us in terms of this and notions.
ReplyDeleteAbelard n the other hand was more clear and concise on his stance that universals are devoid of meaning. though, particulars do. Universals are clearly distinguished from particulars in Abelard's reading which was more satisfying to read than Salisbury
John of Salisbury is surprisingly easy to read, and although he references other philosophers and the history of arguments, he criticizes the highly technical style of writing that alienates those unfamiliar with all of those historical arguments. I imagine he gets away with this because his audience is not primarily new scholars, but rather the so called experts in the field. Still, I think for the modern reader at least, his writing is more approachable than many of his contemporaries.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Abelard, I am pleased to read something that more closely resembles my own intuitions on a subject. Abelard’s thesis that universals are words, is easy to grasp onto because that means that they need not exist in any way beyond the mind. While I think I depart from Abelard, I personally think that a metaphysics improves as it declines in size, so a metaphysics that doesn’t rely on naturally occurring/existing categories is superior to one that does. If universals are words, and words are created by man and only mean something to each other and nothing without man, then they must be human constructs and therefore not metaphysical in nature.
1. I had a hard time differentiating between John of Salisbury's summary and commentary on the thoughts of others and his own arguments. I'm not sure that I understand the context or nature of this whole discussion, and I think that illustration with examples would make it easier to understand.
ReplyDelete2. I found the selection from Abelard to be more productive and interesting. It seems to me that a discussion about the existence of genera and species has more to with the nature of existence than the nature of genera and species.
John of Salisbury points out the elitist attitude of the philospher. I think it relates to the last philosphers we read that have a ranking system for humans, where philosphers sit ontop. This adds to the disconnect non philosphers have with the philosphers because they come off as pompous and all knowing.
ReplyDeleteI find the universals argument to be very intresting. While its said universals are non existant and only belong to connected groups i can't help but think about cultural norms. This is what is belived today by many scholars in multiple fields.
I also enjoyed how John of Salisbury addresses Aristotle and the issues he has with his ideas of universals in a clear and sophisticated way. The idea of notions and that they are derived from their previously perceived form in need of unravelment is an interesting as which was a typical view of Aristotle, however John of Salisbury's view of ideas prevailing through permanence like Seneca's can be found to be more believable in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading Salisbury brings up a subject that I have known to be true but never really thought about. The average person today as well as the average person of the path does not really feel a connection to or even understand philosophy. Often times philosophy is difficult to understand instead of breaking it down into simpler terms philosophers just leave their work as is. Making it seem as if you need to be of a certain status to learn philosophy. Salisbury believes the philosophy is a subject that is meant for everybody not just a small group of so called intellectuals.
ReplyDeleteIn Abelard’s reading he talks about how there is only one universals. I found this idea of only one universal existing to be very interesting. In addition, he talks about how universals are lack meaning. The comparison between universals and words is a good comparison. Just like universals words do not have to be physically seen to be understood.