Quotation
Last reviewed:
“No universal is a substance existing outside the mind.”
William of Ockham · Nominalism · Medieval · c. 1317–1319
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading is the metaphysical payoff of the logical definition. If a universal is an intention of the soul, then no universal is a substance sitting outside the mind. There is no extra entity, humanity, of which humans are samples. A competing reading takes the sentence as a denial that anything outside the mind is real, which would be a scepticism he does not hold. Individual substances are outside the mind. Universals are not among them. The conclusion is argued in the Ordinatio, book I, distinction 2, question 8. The Summa Logicae I.14, already a card, says what a universal is. This sentence says what it is not. The parsimony formula is the methodological cousin. The badge is a translation of a conclusion, and the attribution note says so, because the question is longer than the line.
Did William of Ockham really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. The conclusion of Ockham's argument in the Ordinatio, I, distinction 2, question 8. The Latin is technical. This English states that conclusion rather than reproducing every clause of the question. It matches the definition in the Summa Logicae and is not the later entities slogan.
Where it comes from
Ordinatio, book I, distinction 2, question 8, the conclusion of the argument on universals
Approximate date: c. 1317–1319.
How to use it
A strategy document that speaks of 'the market' as a single agent with moods has built a universal substance. His conclusion says the general term is not that kind of thing. Particular buyers and sellers can still be described. The document's error, when it is an error, is promoting the general word into an actor. The sentence will not tell you whether the campaign should run.
A mindset reading
Negative conclusions need the positive account beside them. He denies extra universal substances because he has a theory of mental signs. Quoting only the denial makes him sound as if he thought general words were nonsense. The habit is to keep the definition and the denial together.
Understand the philosophy
Ordinatio I, distinction 2, question 8, is the extended argument. The key conclusion is that no universal is an extra-mental substance. Summa Logicae I.14 is the shorter definition and is a separate card. I.12 is the parsimony formula. The famous sentence about not multiplying entities is still not his and stays Questionable. These three placed claims are the ones the page can stand behind.
- knowledge
- mind
FAQ
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading is the metaphysical payoff of the logical definition. If a universal is an intention of the soul, then no universal is a substance sitting outside the mind. There is no extra entity, humanity, of which humans are samples. A competing reading takes the sentence as a denial that anything outside the mind is real, which would be a scepticism he does not hold. Individual substances are outside the mind. Universals are not among them. The conclusion is argued in the Ordinatio, book I, distinction 2, question 8. The Summa Logicae I.14, already a card, says what a universal is. This sentence says what it is not. The parsimony formula is the methodological cousin. The badge is a translation of a conclusion, and the attribution note says so, because the question is longer than the line.
Did William of Ockham really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. The conclusion of Ockham's argument in the Ordinatio, I, distinction 2, question 8. The Latin is technical. This English states that conclusion rather than reproducing every clause of the question. It matches the definition in the Summa Logicae and is not the later entities slogan.
Which work is it in?
Ordinatio, book I, distinction 2, question 8, the conclusion of the argument on universals Approximate date: c. 1317–1319.