Is Nominalism For Real? 

I love how Brian refers to changing the labels on a bunch of fruits "an act of treachery and terrorism" and "the ultimate act of sabotage." This is great.

I have a feeling that nominalism is a little bit more robust than what was described here, but what you are describing is likely what many in our society currently hold to be true, poor souls. It may be subconscious, or baked into them from their surrounding culture, but they are fleeing reality.

My family was discussing this concept just a few minutes ago!

The irony of the video title is not lost.

Brian! Absolutely great! I've been waiting for someone of substance to call out the culture on its love of nominalism, even though most of its adherents don't know what it is. This absurd philosophy is at the base of transgenderism. It's so good that you have brought this to light. If nominalism's culture warriors were made to face the underpinnings of their beliefs, they might well conclude that their beliefs are unsustainable. Apropos of Brian's discussion of naming animals. When we are babies, we usually don't ask Mom or Dad, "What do you call that?" We ask, "What IS that?", thus showing the intuitive knowledge --- even in infancy --- that individual things are instantiations of a real thing, say, "cat."

Since I started encountering this way of thinking, it has never occurred to me that it's just the same exact age-old nominalist philosophical tradition being subtly, but surely, rebranded all over again. As you spoke, I kept reminiscing about Shakespeare's famous lines: “What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.”😊

The issue you’re having is a misunderstanding of metaphysics. Metaphysics isn’t a conversation about what is practical to us humans, it’s a conversation about what really is, regardless of our ability to act in accordance with it. The two aren’t mutually exclusive like you’re pretending they are.

Who know who's never nominalist? Children and other language learners. It takes a lot of complex layers of thought (but not mathematics) until someone settles on arbitrary sounds to signify nothings.

I understood nominalism to be at least impractical. But you went way past that. Quoting Chesterton: "There are things only intellectuals believe"

You are totally correct. Nominalism has trickled down into the culture. It fits with the desire to construct our own reality, our own "truth" from a meaningless universe. Kant perhaps bears much of the responsibility for its modern form since he denies we can have knowledge of things in themselves.

A great summary. Another reason many students and philosophers slip into nominalism is that it does seem to capture the order of learning well. We begin our knowing through sensation of various properties. Over time we recognize unities, and start to apply universal terms like dog, cat, etc. and we don't see any essences that correspond to these terms, becuase it is something we can only know (typically partially) through metaphysical reasoning and abstraction. But denying any reality to these leads to all sorts of problems. E.g. what's the difference between a universal like dog or cat or the notion of a "pile" as in a pile of stones. How are we to make sense of the incarnation if there is no human nature in reality? etc.

P1: if nominalism is true, reference is impossible P2: reference is possible C: nominalism is not true

I consider myself a nominalist a bit, but in an entirely different way that you've described it. It's impossible to find any «essence» in material objects (St. Odo). It's obvious that what we call language refers to the mind creating a model of reality based on actions (see Whorf/Wittgenstein/Ong) that consists of different classes of objects. There is no consciousness without a model of reality, and there is no model of reality without a language, and there is no language without a mind. Raw reality is just a stream of stimulus to experience. But that doesn't mean that what we call reality, mind or language is something subjective. There is no private/subjective language in a strict sense. There is no private/subjective mind in a strict sense. Both sides of this dispute are wrong. In a realists model of reality, material things have essence. But what we call «material» is just a way we perceive things, and it's not even completely clear what we mean by «material». In a nominalists model of reality, language refers only to itself, so reality is something completely subjective, which leads consequentially to solipsism. However, as you've pointed out, we act as we live in an objective world and as other people (minds) do exist. So there are «universals» and there are «essences» in some sense. But we cannot say it's in anything we perceive because it is just not. We assume it in our actions, rooted in our model of reality. What we call an essence comes from the Mind. The Mind is what/who creates reality here and now, and our minds are just His children living in their Father's «mansions». This is how I see it.

Names and forms serve practical purposes. I drive a car, I talk about cars and use the word “car”. At the same time I can deny that there is a universal car that every car derives its existence from. At the end of the day an individual car essentially is a sum of its parts.

"I mean that if nominalism had succeeded, it would have been as if Arianism had succeeded, it would have been the beginning of a confession that Christianity had failed. For nominalism is a far more fundamental scepticism than mere atheism." ~ G.K. Chesterton

This is a great commentary! My wife & I both listened to it and came to the conclusion that this is why so many of the world's smartest people, especially government bureaucrats, are idiots.

nominalism is necessary for relativism which is necessary to reject objective morality which is necessary to justify sexual misbehavior. End goal of the enlightenment

Nailed it! Wish Matt Walsh would have had you explain this on his documentary.

I feel like this was a pretty poor strawman of Nominalism. Nominalism is ultimately an observation about language and the way we understand the world. If there were some "real forms" that things neatly fit into, nobody would ever have an argument about edge cases, however they do, which seems to prove that there isn't a set of intrinsic natures. What we have are patterns, which are common enough that we give them names, such as "bear" or "pebble". you can easily find edge-cases on whether something is a "pebble" or a "stone". As a scientist, I think Nominalism is a very useful way to understand that which is purely material, however it obviously cannot be applied to anything with a metaphysical character, such as ensoulled humans. I don't think there is a soul to a chair or a boulder the same way there is a soul to a human being. When asking if a given rock is "the same" boulder as an older rock similar to it, we answer this question by asking if it is composed of the same matter. If this boulder had been crushed to dust, that was then pressed back into the boulder-like shape, then the question of whether it is "the same boulder" becomes highly arbitrary. This arbitraryness is not some deep mystery, rather it is due to the arbitrary way we talk about "sameness", and two people with two different arbitrarily defined definitions of "sameness" will have two different, equally valid answers. This cannot be applied to beings which posess souls, because souls are ultimately infungible, whereas matter appears to be ultimately fungible. If you were to make an exact copy of me, down to the memories stored in the meat-computer called the brain, then an outside observer could not distinguish which one was "me", however from the inside, my soul would continue to percieve from the perspective of one of them, and not the other. Perhaps God would put a soul into this human-like thing, and perhaps not, in either case, asking which one is "me" is not a meaningless question. This seems to be a unique property of souls over matter.

You have presented a strawman of nominalism. Nominalism doesn't reject categories, but assumes categories are product of our mind. If you embrace realism would it mean any category of things is real? Are unicorns real? Are elves real? Are dragons real?

Mr. Holdsworth, I do so admire how much time and effort you put into these educational/catechetical youtube recordings, considering that you are a conscientious husband and father, and you work to make a living. This is a kind of evangelising. I pray for you by name because I greatly appreciate what you are doing. May God give you the inspiration and strength to continue. 🙏🕊

The sons of Satan hate truth so much, they would even murder the truth made incarnate.

ngl bruh what we call things does indeed seem like a social construct its not impossible in utility, but what if one person wants to define a cat with a unicorn horn as a new species of animal but i dont its just human terminology only things i know exist is matter and the soul

No matter what concept you scurry off with, essentialism will prevail.

Nominalism, just another form of collective madness.

i don’t want to sound disingenuous, but this pretty much looks like a straw man of nominalism which assumes a BUNCH of stuff about it, about nominalists, and even what his position itself, without making it explicit…

Well if You didn't actually define what makes a river objectively the same as it was before everything in it changed, and just pointed out the pragmatic and contextual reasons (i.e living "as if" it was still the same Lake Mississippi) for treating it in such way - than you paradoxically made a case FOR nominalism, or at least a kind of nominalism... not against it ;)

Your logic and understanding its a new low with this video

Really interesting video but in the end I’m not convinced. Though I will admit that the idea of being a space wizard who can manipulate the Mystic Realm of True Forms by an action as mundane as making cereal into breakfast has a certain glamorous appeal. Peace!

This is a based cry without any deepth in the subject, just imposing one's view by ironizing the other also giving 0 arguments for both just some mere promises

Please keep making these types of videos, we need them. Ave Maria...🙏🙏🙏

Thank you so much. I didn't know the thing that bothered me in this society has its own name - Nominalism. Thank you, things make much more sense now.

Oh Brian...you nailed it! It is sadly true!🙏🏽🙏🏽

Isn't it platonic to say universals are spaceless and timeless?

The fruits of atheism.

Love the explanation but why can’t nominalism be true? For example red colour when does it end and orange begin? The convention can be expressed as wavelength but still a convention - you could call both colors orange and red as red? The problem with realism when you try to create a metaphysics of fenomena that are not discreet like statue of Apollo 😊but “liquid” where distinction between one and the other name/idea is a matter of convention. It doesn’t make everything relative just some things.

You didn't refute nominalism though. It is true that forms only exist in mind. Forms do not exist in nature outside of mind. However, God is the mind that creates reality, so to speak. So nominalism is true in that there are no "things" in terms of pure matter, but obviously life exists as separate beings, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that God created living things out of formless matter.

The fact that multiple languages use different names for the same thing, refutes realism.

Yoooooooo this is my favorite topic haha! As the resident "ex-Catholic whose Nominalism played a large role in my deconversion", I'd be super happy to dialogue with you about this.

I enjoyed this video very much. I'm reading the Beguine mystics of medieval time so It's very relevant to my reading where they differentiate between Love and love. I just ordered a couple of books on the problem of universals. You know one thing leads to another so who knows where I'll end up. I relate all of this to my forest experience where names tend to become an obstruction to my seeking. Thanks very much.

Nominalism is straight from Satan.

Yes! I've for a long time been of the opinion that catholics and atheists would have much more fruitful discussions if we'd understand the concepts of nominalism and realism. The questions about the experience of "self" by Brian were very valid. He's also onto something when pointing out that living our every day lives according to nominalism would be impractical. Recognizing patterns and assigning labels are critical tasks for us to function and our brains have evolved to do just that. By my view point realism in this context is the error of confusing these hard wired information processing techniques for the underlying structure of the universe.

Silly. Nomonilism doesn't imply we cannot name things. It's a pure strawman.

Kevin brought me here to listen. Whether he enjoys this or not. 😊😁

I suspect most people today are looking at nominalism in the rearview mirror. Nominalism still allows that words have objective meanings. Nominalism would deny that there is a universal category of "woman" that exists apart from particular women. Nominalism would allow, however, that the word woman objectively refers to the ad hoc category that we have created and collectively agreed upon. We are beyond that point today. Deconstructionism has moved beyond simply denying the existence of a universal category, into denying the objective meaning of the word itself. The very words we use, such as "woman" don't inherently mean anything. Nominalism killed metaphysics, but deconstruction has killed meaning. We can't even discuss if there is such a thing as a real universal, because words don't mean. We are no longer at the point where we are saying that the word woman doesn't mean a universal category, but rather means a subjectively agreed upon conventional category. We are now saying the word simply doesn't mean at all.

It's interesting how in programming, a key-value structure is essentially reflecting this concept.

Really good everyday examples

Dr. Chad Pecknold is teaching another Institute of Catholic Culture course, and Nominalism is clearly a foundation built in this modern era.

Brian, what did you do when you were 9?😂

They defy the natural law at their peril. Wait until the chickens come home on this. (Or whatever that thing is). :)

I will say, there are points where common language simply breaks down. Take language itself for instance. Swedish and Norwegian are considered distinct languages, but a native speaker of Swedish and a natir speaker of Norwegian, neither of whom has studied the other, could talk to each other and communicate just fine. Meanwhile, modern English and Old English are considered the same language (or at least, bear the same name), but a modern English speaker who's never studied Old English would be hopelessly lost if given a text or being spoken to in Old English. Or take color. If you point at a thing and say "that's red," and your friend points at the same thing and says "that's green," neither of you can know that the other is lying because you don't know what it looks like to the other person. Or, you could both point at the same thing and both say "that's red," and think you're both seeing the same thing but the other person perceives it as what you would consider to be green. Again, neither of you can know how the other sees it. In the latter case, while you both perceive it differently, you both use the same word for it, so you think you're communicating just fine even though you aren't. Sticking with color, have you ever tried explaining color to someone who's been blind their entire life? How do you define what red is in a way that lets them get it? Maybe you can explain that red is the result of a certain frequency of light bouncing off an object interacting with someone's retinas, so they understand it scientifically. Maybe you can say that red is fire, violence, blood, heat, passion, war, etc., and they understand the emtional impact red has on the viewer. Maybe you can do both, and that person would understand what red is on a physical and metaphysical level. But none of this, at any point, would ever allow them to understand what red looks like. It wouldn't let them picture it in their mind's eye for the simple fact that they lack a frame of reference.

Nominalism is the root of all evil.

So basically they're going back into the cave and rolling the stone n the hole. It's like when The Lord Jesus Christ said Lazarus come forth... The would've said," No! We like it in here! They are legion🔥

Thank you, thank you, thank you! You are absolutely right on. This is not the first time I have heard this, but you said it very clearly and cogently. Nominalism is it dead end philosophy.

The fruit example - are you suggesting that if someone believes that universals are mental categories, they would not be capable of identifying particulars? I don't see why this should be the case. It could be that particulars are identified as being part of a category or are universal using visual or other sensory information (among other ways such as using books or measurements).

if one views universals like woman or womanhood, red or redness, et cetera, as merely the labels or categories of associations made between particulars that display a quality or qualities that are similar to the quality or qualities of other particulars, what is this view considered to be if it is not considered nominalism? from the various descriptions of nominalism that ive heard, which vary greatly for some reason, this would be considered to be nominalism or some form of it. however, its completely different from the nominalism that you describe. i think many are confused by and or misunderstand nominalism itself. it doesnt follow from my view, which seems to be some form of nominalism, that names of things or the labels or categories become inapplicable to those things as those things change. if that were the case, that would defeat the purpose of language itself. rather, my view is the purpose to some degree and or the utility of language itself is to imbue persistence that is otherwise not present so that our mental models of the world maintain an adequate degree of utility and dont suddenly break down the moment something changes in the slightest, which is happening constantly. further, the physical manifestion of a particulars qualities are never identical the physical manifestations of other particulars qualitiies despite being sufficiently similar to warrant classification, categorization, or association to a universal. the map is not the territory. language is merely a tool that we have created to model and comprehend reality or our experience of it. or, perhaps i or those whove described nominalism to me misunderstand what exactly nominalism is. in either case, its clear that nominalism and similar views are very difficult for many people to understand.

Wait people actually believe this?

"One of Plato's Critics once stated, "I see particular horses, but not horseness." Plato answered, "That is because you have eyes but no intelligence."

I feel like I am just now recovering from realising I was lost in nominalism without ever realising what it was. Atheists like I was, use ideas like "truth" and "good" but never explain how those things can exist if the universe is just atoms bouncing off each other. Explaining the existence of the visible world by handwaving about the Big Bang is one thing, but they completely leave out explaining the existence of the invisible world. As someone once said, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible".

This seems to be an attack on what Brian *thinks* nominalism is, rather than any substantial attack on nominalism? If you want to argue that nominalism is false, you just need to demonstrate that the "redness" that can be seen in a stop sign, a US flag and a tomato *actually exists* (has ontological status) independent of the particular things in which we observe it. This "redness", which has no extension in space or time, is NOT an idea in someone's head, and it is NOT part of the physical world, so you need to postulate a nonspatiotemporal acausal 'realm' as part of reality, and ideally, explain how human minds access it (since it's NOT part of any causal chain). If you think non-material "redness" exists within a 'third realm' within reality (the platonist's stance you're defending), then once you've made this postulation, you need to establish its existence. It's not about whether things like "redness" are useful fictions that are convenient for communication and understanding (THAT would be the nominalist's stance) - it's about whether such a realm is REAL and ACTUALLY exists. I don't think the denial of abstracta/universals has anything to do with woke-type attitudes, as the debate about the ontology of abstracta goes back rather a long way.

Thanks for the summary. I’ve struggled for a decade now trying to explain this particular renunciation of modernity to seniors at my classical school. I’m planning to work you into the repertoire! Well done.

Post V2 seminary prof. Wanted to avoid "being". Ontology and metaphysics were considered old hat.

Not saying categories don’t exist. I do think it’s true that two people may be using the same word and be talking about two different things and two people can use two words and be talking about the same being.

The fruits are known by these labels because society has decided over the long process of language that these are the "names" assigned to these specific fruit. There is nothing in this scenario that justifies us needing to push universals into this. We use universals in thinking of concepts because its an useful tool for humans, not because these are metaphysically real concepts, and they dont need to be for us to act like they are. You cant really define a chair, but you know what is a chair when you see it.

Well dpne! I recommend The Theological Origins of Modernity by Gillespie, which is a remarkable expose of the disaster of nominalism,

Not sure I understand everything in this video. It is not given to the human eye to see a thing as it truly is. Even when we use the word "woman" we are using something relative to describe something absolute. We don't know what God calls women--do we? In our society the name and associated concept endures because of the enduring consensus on its meaning. That doesn't mean we know all the answers. The moment we get cocky God will humble us

9:50 I'm curious as to what this would mean for someone who is neurodivergent and does function this way. I know it's suboptimal and a disability but what would you say to the person who uses this subject to say its real nonetheless?

Nominalism is inane. It is a self-contradiction posturing as insight, which is concealing the fact (often even from its adopters/proponents) that it's a mere assertion against the real.

Thankyou Brian.

Harris Elizabeth Williams Laura Gonzalez Scott

Anybody have advice for someone who doesnt believe but wants too?

I do appreciate the rage comic face.

I was always curious what do realists belive happens when a new item is invented. Does its universal also come into existance or do we just discover it. If it had existed before does that impoly that there exists a universal for every item imaginable? Asking out of curiosity as a nominaist

Excellent!

I'd like to know an arguement for realism that doesn't involve God.

Realism is actually in the lead but not by much.

If I say "I am a nominalist", am I using a universal?

You might say nominalism is where the wheels fell off for western civilization.

"What is that?" They are most definitely looking for the name of the object.

Very good.

I hope you get a decent hemorrhoid cream or a comfier cushion. Sounds like you need it

3:07 heyheyheyhey, what if, get this, a different asian language had the n-word soft a be a filler word like, like or um "that that that" I mean that would be absolutely impossible, since nominalism isn't true and our definitions are absolutely objective or refer to an essence that can't possibly just be called by literally any sound imaginable. (don't google translate that that that to Chinese and listen to what it says) you aren't the same person as you were when you are nine, parents interact with you based off of the subjective limited knowledge they have of you, which goes to show how there is no objective version of yourself, you are forever changing. You know in japan, people actually did get a new name every time they got a new rank, and I am sure it was the most annoying thing imaginable, remembering everyone's name. When we make names, we name whatever characteristics we see, then if we meet that thing we named later, if it has a lot of the characteristics, or someone claims that said thing is the thing you named, we continue calling it the same name even though it is different, you could say we are "renaming" everything with the same name we had for an older version of said things if you want to be weird. A river for instance isn't the exact patch of water we see when looking at it, it is the place where water is currently flowing, when that changes, the river changes, and we "rename" the new river the name of the old one, since it was created by the old one. screw meta physics, we don't need it, unless it is a fancy word that describes the very thing I am explaining, in which case it is good. There are no universals, only collective subjective experiences. NOOOOOOO devolving into cringe god argument that doesn't even make sense. We make names for collective traits we see in groups of objects, that is how "essence" is made, not magic voodoo space timeless white guy, nooooooooo. 9:20 you dimwit, it would be funny if he brought whichever thing labeled "orange" back to his wife, but he wouldn't because there is this cool thing humans do where they use the definitions that are most commonly used, which was how you described it here 9:18. Match particulars with subjectively widely accepted name. People ask about particulars because that's all there is, particulars, and groups of particulars that we make up labels for. Strange how when you describe being, you just describe more particular facts about pinables, like how they are pokey, taste bad, and grow on trees. Everything you speak of is by default from your own point of view, so yes, whenever you talk you are doing so selfishly.

Where’s Kevin?

For me as a literary translator, this is a matter of central importance.

I really like the Icon lantern in the background. is there a name for that?

I can't understand what the problem with nominalism is (or I've misunderstood you). Humans cognise the world through language and it resulted in concepts and universals. Linguistic concepts don't necessarily meet the structure of reality. And they don't actually have to. Both words and concepts are labels we employ for convenience, we don't have another better tool for cognition. There would be more use in reducing the effect of linguistic ambivalence rather than inferring some metaphysical nature behind concepts.

You teach so well thank you

I think realism is “people who give birth” versus women I don’t get insuring that “transwomen” are women like women who have actual genetic female DNA and natural female anatomy

Nominalism is the only way to researcher in the end

I can create infinite number of universals at will. Maybe universals are just ideas/concepts? Nominalism...

Unfortunately, I think you are making a strawman here. Nominalism does NOT entail renaming everything that changes. Just because universals do not exist as abstract properties, does not mean that universals do not exist as concepts, or that they are not useful. In fact, a nominalist typically believes that the idea of universals exists exactly because it is extremely useful and adaptive, because universals help us groups similar happenings in the world, so that we do not get confused all the time. All this can still be true under nominalism.

Thumbnail game strong.

Nominalists are Nominalist in name only.

When you say that metaphysics presents the best explanation rationally .... what do you mean?

Honestly, this is one of you best videos; it had me especially from the intro with that captura experience. Nominalism/Realism just brings me back to my philosophy undergrad. So on point, fantastic job.

It’s fairly straightforward, if you are born with XY Chromosomes (even with Klinefelter syndrome which is XXY) you are Male or in the case of Swyer Syndrome you can have XY and still be classified a Women. On second thoughts it’s not as straightforward as I thought, can I have a paracetamol please 🐹

Nominalism..Wow!!..people that are living in their head to much..but I do love "pokey apples"..refreshing by itself or on pizza! God bless

I'm sorry, but this video is a miss - a rarity among your videos. Nominalism can be more coherent when we allow for the influence of social mediation, custom, and tradition. I don't myself subscribe to nominalism, but this is not a good takedown - it's a strawman. This doesn't address the seeming nominalism of figures like Hobbes or Hume. They take much of our thought to be largely customary, and therefore the many words we use are made sensible by a kind of linguistic consensus. An easy example of this would be how two distinct cultures could, in theory, disagree about whether a small, branching, leafed plant is either a "bush" or a "tree." Did one get it wrong, or do they simply use different universals that seem to be translatable and consequently caused confusion? How could they make up different universals? This is a much more nuanced understanding of nominalism that is not as simple as "that's what that is called because it's what I called it right now," which is basically what the argument in this video is attacking. I think your concern is with a particular sort of nominalism that does seem culturally relevant, which is that "a thing is what I call it," which is utterly incoherent. Even on the nominalism of Hobbes or Hume, the transgender confusion would remain confusion. But that means there is something more than mere nominalism happening here. We need to be more careful with what we are criticizing precisely.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏BRILLIANT

yes, the child is asking about the world or a particular aspect of the childs own reality or experience thereof, but do not forget that you are using the tool of language to interact with your child and interface with reality