1. I found the selection of Abelard on universals to be a little vague, although it is more the topic of discussion that I think I find vague. I feel like I need more of a context for the discussion. I approve of what he says about abstraction and corporeality.
2. I found the Lambert selection to be informative and interesting. I think that it is important to establish how terms are used because language is the medium through which we discuss philosophy, and so we have to understand language in order to understand philosophy. I also think it is just interesting because even though the use of language is replete within our lives, we don't often examine its nature.
I like how Lambert says that an utterance is outside the soul, meaning just stating something is an agreed upon concept, while the idea of what it actually means is within the soul. This highlights the abstract nature of communication. It also shows how both have to work in unity so we can understand something then communicate it to others.
I also enjoyed the fact that we have to accept concepts for them to make sense to us. When we understand a statement we must take the statement to heart and understand it's meaning. This is imporant as Philosophy majors because we need to understand concepts to learn from eachother.
1.) The most interesting part of the Abelard reading was his clear definition of a universal as being isolated pure and bare. It seems that this is as clear a reasoning as one could get to understand why the medieval thinkers had their obsession for the simplest image of God imaginable. God in this context being the most universal of the universals. 2.) I found the Lamberti reading to be very useful from a linguistic perspective and I appreciated the simplicity of the pieces structure. However I am confused as to how this relates to the topic of universals, or rather how one can use these distinctions in an interesting way in the discourse. It seems that in general everyday use talking of signifiers pays excellent dividends.
1. It was interesting to see our discussion from class last week so directly reflected in the reading for this week. The discussion I am referring to was on simple sentence structure, regarding a subject and a predicate and how a subject is given its meaning from a predicate. I was this directly referenced in the reading from the excerpt of the Summa Lamberti. In the excerpt it states that significance from our utterances is dependent on four things: "a thing, a concept [or some understanding] of the thing, an utterance, and the union of the utterance with the concept of the thing" (66). In this light the "thing" is taken to be the subject, which gets its significance from the "concept" or the understanding of the subject.
2. Overall, I found the excerpt for Summa Lamberti to be a much simpler read compared to what we have been assigned thus far in class. I found it to be a helpful foundation to understanding the topic of universals in the medieval period providing a sort of base to understanding how universals were discussed, where there meanings were taken from, and how the operated as broad understandings to connect the particular things discussed.
Abelard seems to be continuing the trend of approaching the problem of universals linguistically rather than metaphysically which is a decision I agree with. That being said, I feel like Abelard is paying a more than fair, perhaps even excessive, amount of lip service to the opposing thesis, that universals are, in addition to having a common cause, there is also a common concept of them. In other words, something descendant of a platonic form. I wonder if this is an opinion Abelard holds, or if it is an attempt to gain the attention of those who fall into that party in an effort to get them to digest the argument for linguistics.
While reading Lamberti’s examples used to differentiate signification and supposition I cannot help but feel like some of the nuance of the argument is lost in modern English. I say this because some of the differences he points out are hardly subtle, and I feel as though in modern English it would be clear to anyone (whose first language it is) exactly what the difference between “man” as a species, and “A man” as an individual to which the universal doesn’t apply. It is clear that while (continuing with Lamberti’s example) Socrates is “A man” no one could mistake him for “man” as “mankind.”
This Abelard reading was much easier to comprehend and put into perspective because of the discussion last class, as well as his clear meaning towards universals and purity and isolation he spoke of.
I think the Lamberti reading helped to solidify my understanding universals because it seems the perspective was a good foundation for understanding this. maybe it would have helped memory to read this one first then the Abelard. Lambrti's approach was simplistic in its formation.
1.I was actually really impressed by Abelard point about simplicity and purity being nothing more then features of our understanding. The language we use seems to mask this reality. We say things like “this is simple” or “this is pure” as if those were attributes existed in the real world. That sentiment is something that gets to the heart of this discussion on unversials. The discussion may have begun to find a resolution to the theological tension about souls and bodies. But because of that these philosopher have began to realize that the world we perceive is being clouded by nothing more human division. They are, of course, still far from realizing that the inverse of plato’s theory of the forms is equally convincing. That the concepts and idea we have are actually hindering our ability to see the quote on quote real world. 2.Can a word be signified? The four conditions of Signification listed in the reading were a thing,a concept of the thing, and a union between the utterance and the concept of the thing. So where does language fall into this equation? When it comes to matter, the thing is what comes first before the concept of it. That can not be the case for a word though because there is no matter to it. So what would have to come first is the concept then the thing, which is the chain of sounds or letter required to make the word. Then what about the utterance? The utterance itself is the thing. Weird.
I thought it was interesting how Abelard formulated the idea of abstraction and how it relates to universals. He makes the case that although certain words like "man" do not have a specific referent, nonetheless they have a real dimension to them. He describes them as pure, isolated and bare. I thought this was a good way to consider the nature of universals and understanding them as not vacuous. Abelard's approach is that of a linguistic one and not a metaphysical one, which is an approach that seems to work best.
1) Abelard's discussion on abstractions was interesting. He argues that abstractions are not empty. When we think specifically about something in its particular parts, removed from the others, we are abstracting. This is different from thinking about a part of an individual as seperate from its other parts. This would be empty.
2) Lamberti's linguistical argument was a bit harder for me to follow than Abelard's. For example, Accidental Supposition vs. Natural Supposition I felt was too bogged down by the idea of the eternal existing in the universe.
I'm quite surprised to see that the philosophy of language was taken so seriously in past times. Abelard implies that there must be an "abstraction" in a "universal concept". He writes as if he knows there will be some disagreement on his interpretation. However, this point is very important to clarify. He writes that qualities and descriptions are still rather... non-descriptive. These concepts can be interpreted in whatever way the interpreter wishes. Also, he acknowledges the futility in applying a non-real, abstract trait from our minds to something in the physical world. For Abelard, perception is not equivalent to reality. The mind will conjure what it wishes upon hearing a word. As he points out, the word "man" alone sounds simple in principle; but, this couldn't be farther from the truth. The man himself in the real world is different from the man the mind conjures; the real man is without doubt vastly more complex.
I feel that Lambert's reading goes a bit more in depth on this topic. The difference between signification and supposition are important points that were addressed. One being a connotation or interpretation of one trait, while the other encompasses the entire thing. Supposition itself can have several different meanings, but I shall digress. This seems to be too cumbersome for the common man to internalize. Nevertheless, the conversation carried on by both of these thinkers is integral to philosophy itself.
1. I found the selection of Abelard on universals to be a little vague, although it is more the topic of discussion that I think I find vague. I feel like I need more of a context for the discussion. I approve of what he says about abstraction and corporeality.
ReplyDelete2. I found the Lambert selection to be informative and interesting. I think that it is important to establish how terms are used because language is the medium through which we discuss philosophy, and so we have to understand language in order to understand philosophy. I also think it is just interesting because even though the use of language is replete within our lives, we don't often examine its nature.
I like how Lambert says that an utterance is outside the soul, meaning just stating something is an agreed upon concept, while the idea of what it actually means is within the soul. This highlights the abstract nature of communication. It also shows how both have to work in unity so we can understand something then communicate it to others.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed the fact that we have to accept concepts for them to make sense to us. When we understand a statement we must take the statement to heart and understand it's meaning. This is imporant as Philosophy majors because we need to understand concepts to learn from eachother.
1.) The most interesting part of the Abelard reading was his clear definition of a universal as being isolated pure and bare. It seems that this is as clear a reasoning as one could get to understand why the medieval thinkers had their obsession for the simplest image of God imaginable. God in this context being the most universal of the universals.
ReplyDelete2.) I found the Lamberti reading to be very useful from a linguistic perspective and I appreciated the simplicity of the pieces structure. However I am confused as to how this relates to the topic of universals, or rather how one can use these distinctions in an interesting way in the discourse. It seems that in general everyday use talking of signifiers pays excellent dividends.
1. It was interesting to see our discussion from class last week so directly reflected in the reading for this week. The discussion I am referring to was on simple sentence structure, regarding a subject and a predicate and how a subject is given its meaning from a predicate. I was this directly referenced in the reading from the excerpt of the Summa Lamberti. In the excerpt it states that significance from our utterances is dependent on four things: "a thing, a concept [or some understanding] of the thing, an utterance, and the union of the utterance with the concept of the thing" (66). In this light the "thing" is taken to be the subject, which gets its significance from the "concept" or the understanding of the subject.
ReplyDelete2. Overall, I found the excerpt for Summa Lamberti to be a much simpler read compared to what we have been assigned thus far in class. I found it to be a helpful foundation to understanding the topic of universals in the medieval period providing a sort of base to understanding how universals were discussed, where there meanings were taken from, and how the operated as broad understandings to connect the particular things discussed.
Abelard seems to be continuing the trend of approaching the problem of universals linguistically rather than metaphysically which is a decision I agree with. That being said, I feel like Abelard is paying a more than fair, perhaps even excessive, amount of lip service to the opposing thesis, that universals are, in addition to having a common cause, there is also a common concept of them. In other words, something descendant of a platonic form. I wonder if this is an opinion Abelard holds, or if it is an attempt to gain the attention of those who fall into that party in an effort to get them to digest the argument for linguistics.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Lamberti’s examples used to differentiate signification and supposition I cannot help but feel like some of the nuance of the argument is lost in modern English. I say this because some of the differences he points out are hardly subtle, and I feel as though in modern English it would be clear to anyone (whose first language it is) exactly what the difference between “man” as a species, and “A man” as an individual to which the universal doesn’t apply. It is clear that while (continuing with Lamberti’s example) Socrates is “A man” no one could mistake him for “man” as “mankind.”
This Abelard reading was much easier to comprehend and put into perspective because of the discussion last class, as well as his clear meaning towards universals and purity and isolation he spoke of.
ReplyDeleteI think the Lamberti reading helped to solidify my understanding universals because it seems the perspective was a good foundation for understanding this. maybe it would have helped memory to read this one first then the Abelard. Lambrti's approach was simplistic in its formation.
1.I was actually really impressed by Abelard point about simplicity and purity being nothing more then features of our understanding. The language we use seems to mask this reality. We say things like “this is simple” or “this is pure” as if those were attributes existed in the real world. That sentiment is something that gets to the heart of this discussion on unversials. The discussion may have begun to find a resolution to the theological tension about souls and bodies. But because of that these philosopher have began to realize that the world we perceive is being clouded by nothing more human division. They are, of course, still far from realizing that the inverse of plato’s theory of the forms is equally convincing. That the concepts and idea we have are actually hindering our ability to see the quote on quote real world.
ReplyDelete2.Can a word be signified? The four conditions of Signification listed in the reading were a thing,a concept of the thing, and a union between the utterance and the concept of the thing. So where does language fall into this equation? When it comes to matter, the thing is what comes first before the concept of it. That can not be the case for a word though because there is no matter to it. So what would have to come first is the concept then the thing, which is the chain of sounds or letter required to make the word. Then what about the utterance? The utterance itself is the thing. Weird.
I thought it was interesting how Abelard formulated the idea of abstraction and how it relates to universals. He makes the case that although certain words like "man" do not have a specific referent, nonetheless they have a real dimension to them. He describes them as pure, isolated and bare. I thought this was a good way to consider the nature of universals and understanding them as not vacuous. Abelard's approach is that of a linguistic one and not a metaphysical one, which is an approach that seems to work best.
ReplyDelete1) Abelard's discussion on abstractions was interesting. He argues that abstractions are not empty. When we think specifically about something in its particular parts, removed from the others, we are abstracting. This is different from thinking about a part of an individual as seperate from its other parts. This would be empty.
ReplyDelete2) Lamberti's linguistical argument was a bit harder for me to follow than Abelard's. For example, Accidental Supposition vs. Natural Supposition I felt was too bogged down by the idea of the eternal existing in the universe.
I'm quite surprised to see that the philosophy of language was taken so seriously in past times. Abelard implies that there must be an "abstraction" in a "universal concept". He writes as if he knows there will be some disagreement on his interpretation. However, this point is very important to clarify. He writes that qualities and descriptions are still rather... non-descriptive. These concepts can be interpreted in whatever way the interpreter wishes. Also, he acknowledges the futility in applying a non-real, abstract trait from our minds to something in the physical world. For Abelard, perception is not equivalent to reality. The mind will conjure what it wishes upon hearing a word. As he points out, the word "man" alone sounds simple in principle; but, this couldn't be farther from the truth. The man himself in the real world is different from the man the mind conjures; the real man is without doubt vastly more complex.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Lambert's reading goes a bit more in depth on this topic. The difference between signification and supposition are important points that were addressed. One being a connotation or interpretation of one trait, while the other encompasses the entire thing. Supposition itself can have several different meanings, but I shall digress. This seems to be too cumbersome for the common man to internalize. Nevertheless, the conversation carried on by both of these thinkers is integral to philosophy itself.