263. One in a Million: Scotus on Universals and Individuals

(in spirit of creating weird terms) ... I really liked your episode today. However, I think I could use a bit of explanation why this old crap matters at all. You know something like how does the dispute on universals, and (in my opinion) sad reality that it has never been resolved, more like just abandoned reflects on the current disputes. I.e., isn't there some link between the dispute between nominalism and realism and current discussoins about social reality (e.g., gender)? Is gender real or just socially constructed? I know that philosophy is supposed to be dry and boring, but the dispuste about universals seems to get to the limits of what anybody is able to sustain.

Thanks for the show though

I must say that despite some people not liking this section on Medieval philosophy I personally have found it not only deeply interesting from a historical perspective but also greatly thought provoking. I often recommend your podcast to people who wish to know more about medieval philosophy.

Anyway, just thought I should write and say that I am amazed and thankful you have put the massive effort into making these jems every week!

Ben

As the saying goes ' You can take a horse to the trough but you cannot make him drink' 

Firstly, thank you so much for the the whole series and books.

What a find (for me at least) is John Dun Scotus!

I must admit that even if did not know the works of some of the philosophers, I had some vague recollection of their name and roughly where they fit in history. With Scotus I had never heard of him. So this is enough to make medieval philosophy very interesting.

Another wonderful outcome is that at least for those of us that are scientifically trained, is how the culture of most science grads is to think that Medievals were some sort of people that chcked their brain out the door for a few centuries.

Your episodes are showing that this is not true at all. Continuity was alive and we must look at other areas to find reasons for accelaration and deccelaration of "progress".

The other area I found equally impressive was the time after hellenistic thought passed over to the Greek Church fathers.  These people pondered very hard on difficult topics that hardly anyone today knows or appreciates. Again thinking did not die but continued.

This is an amazing effort, and closing the gaps and shows that there will always be people that will try to make sense of it all and gracious enough to share with the rest of us.

Great episode! Such a clear exposition on such a complicated topic.

I'm very intrigued by the last section about the cognition of individuals. I thought that Kant's distinction between intuitive and discursive knowledge should be traced back to Leibniz. Now I realize that it should be traced back to Scotus.

I know it is a joke, but i find it interesting that we treat the statement A is B, where A is a universal, to mean strictly "All A is B" when this is so rarely the case in practical language.  There are a ton of other possible uses, such as "Apples are [typically/iconically] red," "African Americans [usually] vote democrat," "it is safer [on aggrigate], to wear a seatbelt," "taller waiters [all else being equal] recieve larger tips" and even the Aristotilian "humans [by nature/by essence] have two legs."   I understand why it is strictly true logically (at least Fregian and Stoic logically), but seems to be a pretty big leap to assume A is B was intended as "all A is B" in practice.

-Alexander "Otter" Johnson

Post Script:  I was also wondering why Aquinas was handled different than Augustine.  Both had a typical style but atypical conclusions to those of their own time period, that had little immediate influence but a much larger influence down the road.  It seems a little strange that he was singled out to be handled differently than several similar philosophers such as Augustine.  Is he just, whatever the reverse of trendy is, right now?

Hi - You may have mentioned this, but do medieval philosophers ever talk about the fuzziness of universals? For example, if a horse is born that can’t neigh, does this fail to be an individual within the species horse?  This is for me an argument in favor of nominalism but, in the context of Duns Scotus I almost feel like this extends the concept of individuation to species. You might say that there is still some heacceity that separates a horse from a giraffe even if one of them is missing an important distinguishing feature. A commenter above referenced gender and this feels very relevant here — I don’t know a good definition of “womanhood” or “manhood” that captures everyone’s experience, but these still feel like useful concepts. So maybe the metaphysical definition of a woman isn’t really reducible beyond “woman-ness” or the “this-ness” that separates the species of woman.