Page 4 of 9 First 12345678 ... Last
  1. #31
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,333
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    They spoke English, for the most part. William...English...anyway. He might have written Latin now and then, but I'd love to see your source for any quotation.

    If he quoted it SO OFTEN, please be so kind as to quote me William of Ockham saying anything like Phrost declared he stated (in the original Latin). The book and date, please.

    I'll save you the time: they all belong to a different person. Sir William never wrote any such thing, and while he promoted the concept, is mistakenly associated with a COMMON philosophical devices going back well before him.

    If you're going to discuss "Ockham's Razor" online, you should at least get it right. Now I'd like to see proof of this claim: "all of William of Ockham's books were written in Latin"
    Right... Monks in Munich spoke English. Sure they did.

    Also you keep referring to him as "Sir", please produce evidence that he was knighted. The last I checked, the RCC forbade clergy(you know like monks) from holding either land or title.

    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
    Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi

    Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
    Summa Totius Logicae

    There are two that I found for you. The one quoted by the Encyclopedia Brittannica makes three. Yes I know you don't believe the Encyclopedia Brittannica, but honestly that is because you are playing the idiot. Unless you can prove that it is wrong, it's 100 editors and 4000 contributors out weigh your anonymous self in authority on any subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    You don't know Latin, and you haven't scoured his writings because other scholars did it before you. "Originally phrased" is a problem you can't solve using William of Ockham.
    You are wrong on your first and third assertion, and as to your second assertion, it is more because I have other things to do with my time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    There is no such phrase, uttered by Ockham, remotely close to what's been claimed, Michael.
    Wrong again. I quoted you two from his actual works, and the Encyclopedia Britannica makes three. You can keep on with our alt facts Spicer Jr, but you have yet to offer any proof or sourcing for your claims.

  2. #32
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,333
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hey Spicer Jr, I'll toss you another bone:
    here is a digital version of his book online(notice the latin):
    https://archive.org/details/A336059bis
    Since you are such an archivist and understand these sorts of references here is folio and line location
    i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K

    Oh wait, you didn't know that you could google up original printings of all of his works and see them in their original Latin did you? That is why you have erroneously claimed that he never wrote in Latin and demanded proof that he did.
    {mic drop}

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Right... Monks in Munich spoke English. Sure they did.

    Also you keep referring to him as "Sir", please produce evidence that he was knighted. The last I checked, the RCC forbade clergy(you know like monks) from holding either land or title.
    You don't have to be knighted to be a "Sir" in English. It's just a courtesy, sir.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
    Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi
    William of Ockham didn't write that. That's someone else' writing. Pay more attention to the citation

    He died more than a century before that was written in 1495...it is also not “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”, the OP quote that Phrost misattributed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
    Summa Totius Logicae
    A completely different turn of phrase and also nowhere near "“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”, which belongs to other men. There is a LONG lineage of philosophers who said the same thing, and my point is that the one incorrectly associated with William belongs to other people (suggesting maybe those other men are worthy of mention too, but maybe I'm just being sentimental).

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    There are two that I found for you. The one quoted by the Encyclopedia Brittannica makes three. Yes I know you don't believe the Encyclopedia Brittannica, but honestly that is because you are playing the idiot. Unless you can prove that it is wrong, it's 100 editors and 4000 contributors out weigh your anonymous self in authority on any subject.
    No, you're still at zero. From your own source (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham):

    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
    Plurality is never to be posited without necessity.
    Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi [Questions and the decisions of the Sentences of Peter Lombard] (1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K; also in The Development of Logic (1962), by William Calvert Kneale, p. 243; similar statements were common among Scholastic philosophers, at least as early as John Duns (Duns Scotus).
    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.
    As cited in "The Myth of Occam's Razor" by William Thorburn, in Mind, Vol. 27 (1918), 345-353.

    Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
    It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer.
    Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, cited in "Ockham's Razor" by Paul Newall at Galilean Library (25 June 2005)

    You cannot find a single reference to "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate." in any writing by William of Ockham.

    John Punch, and by extension Duns Scotus all the way to the ORIGINAL Greek of Ptolemy (an Egyptian!), deserve your apology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Wrong again. I quoted you two from his actual works, and the Encyclopedia Britannica makes three. You can keep on with our alt facts Spicer Jr, but you have yet to offer any proof or sourcing for your claims.
    My claims?

    How about you provide a source that William of Ockham wrote "“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate/Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." in Latin anywhere. That's the claim being discussed in this thread, and that claim is just wrong, and it's not my claim...it's a bad citation polluting Bullshido.net's front page.

    Meanwhile, I've posted at least half a dozen other Scholastics and the own turn of the same phrase. It turns out the same thing has been repeated by dozens of great thinkers, BUT the number of sources connecting William of Ockham with the statement being attribute to him is...

    Zero point zero. Phrost really needs to fix the error, because he's attributing to William of Ockham a phrase recorded by other people (going back to Greek, not Latin). Don't dumb down the rich philosophical history and assign everything to ONE GUY who didn't even say the thing he's being associated with "in the original Latin".

    You're the educator, post Ptolemy's version and we'll go up the chain and you'll learn what I mean.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/05/2017 7:46pm at .

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Here's an actual source for the Latin phrases we're discussing.

    Johannes Poncius’s commentary on John Duns Scotus's Opus Oxoniense, book III, dist. 34, q. 1. in John Duns Scotus Opera Omnia, vol.15, Ed. Luke Wadding, Louvain (1639), reprinted Paris: Vives, (1894) p.483a

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Hey Spicer Jr, I'll toss you another bone:
    here is a digital version of his book online(notice the latin):
    https://archive.org/details/A336059bis
    Since you are such an archivist and understand these sorts of references here is folio and line location
    i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K

    Oh wait, you didn't know that you could google up original printings of all of his works and see them in their original Latin did you? That is why you have erroneously claimed that he never wrote in Latin and demanded proof that he did.
    {mic drop}
    Where did I claim he never wrote in Latin? You claimed he ONLY wrote in Latin, and I knew that was wrong so I challenged it.

    Latin, being his SECOND language, was not the only language he wrote in. You're using a sample of his Latin works to make a point that they're all in Latin...great.

    And of course the book you're sourcing (written in 1495, more than a century after William was rotting in the grave) was not solely written by William of Ockham, it was edited by Ioannes Trechsel.

    There has been a GREAT deal of scholastic debate on this subject, and quite frankly Michael you're not addressing any of that.

    Here's a great primer on the inquiry that's been done. It's your own source (The Myth of Occam's Razor)

    I think you'll come away realizing that the phrase the Bullshido front page and you (and many others) incorrectly associate with a monk from Surrey, instead comes from a large number of different people, and before claiming that one of them stated the principle in a specific way, it should be accurate.

    Otherwise you're basically snubbing a whole range of important academics and their works.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_M...ccam%27s_Razor
    (this is from Thorburn, 1918, something you just sourced that I read entirely before posting)

    All of this words were written by Duns Scotus. Look familiar?

    (a) "Nunquam est ponenda pluralitas sine necessitate," appears in the Scotian Commentary In Metaphysica (Aristotelis): i., Q. 4, Scholium 3, p. 532 (10) of Wadding's tom. iv.
    (b) "Pluralitas non est ponenda, nisi ubi est necessitas": Opus Oxon., i., D. 3, Q. 6, Scholium 5, p. 525 (12) of tom. v.
    (c) "Ista opinio ponit pluralitatem sine necessitate, quod est contra doctrinam Philosophorum": Opus Oxon., iv., D.1, QQ. 4 and 5, Scholium 3, p. 84 (7) of tom. viii.
    (d) And in the next Scholium (4) he declares: "Sicut sequenti rationem naturalem, non sunt ponenda plura, nisi quae ratio naturalis concludit, ita sequenti fidem non sunt ponenda plura quam veritas fidei requirat": p. 90 (9) of tom. viii.
    (e) A peculiar variant occurs on page 737 (4) of tom. iv.: In Metaphysica, viii., Q. 1, Scholium 2: "Positio plurium semper debet dicere necessitatem manifestam".
    (f) "Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora:" is found on page 30 (3) of tom. ii.: In Physica (Aristotelis), i., Q. 8.
    (g) This is expanded into: "Generale enim principium est, quod si aliquid potest aeque bene fieri per pauciora, sicut per plura, nullo modo talis pluralitas debet poni": De Rerum Principio, Q. 1, art. 2, Scholium on page 92 (9) of tom. iii.
    (h) Another peculiar Scotian variant is given in the Reportata Parisiensia, ii., D. 15, Q. 1, Scholium 5, on page 348 of tom. xi.: "Paucitas est ponenda, ubi pluralitas non est necessaria".
    Now, Duns lived centuries before William of Ockham. John Punch formulated his own Latin verses centuries later, based on the former and not the latter.

    Who's quoting whom? The answer is they're all rephrasing the same Latin and Greek before it all the way back to Aristotle.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/05/2017 8:35pm at .

  6. #36
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,333
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    6
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    You don't have to be knighted to be a "Sir" in English. It's just a courtesy, sir.
    Actually you do. But that is a side point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    William of Ockham didn't write that. That's someone else' writing. Pay more attention to the citation

    He died more than a century before that was written in 1495...it is also not “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”, the OP quote that Phrost misattributed.
    So you know more than say the Librarians at UPenn:
    https://franklin.library.upenn.edu/c...32508613503681
    Ever stop to think the publication date of the earliest extant copy and authorship are not intrinsically linked? No, you apparently didn't.
    Now that you have been proven wrong, you are moving the goals posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Why are you quoting Sir William of Ockham in Latin, Michael?

    I'm sure you have a solid source suggesting William ever uttered or recorded such a phrase.

    No, not alt-facts. Poor citation, because they're only human. The online EB is shitty when it comes to sourcing things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    They spoke English, for the most part. William...English...anyway. He might have written Latin now and then, but I'd love to see your source for any quotation.

    If he quoted it SO OFTEN, please be so kind as to quote me [b]William of Ockham saying anything like Phrost declared he stated (in the original Latin). The book and date, please.

    I'll save you the time: they all belong to a different person.
    Sir William never wrote any such thing[b], and while he promoted the concept, is mistakenly associated with a COMMON philosophical devices going back well before him.

    If you're going to discuss "Ockham's Razor" online, you should at least get it right. Now I'd like to see proof of this claim: "all of William of Ockham's books were written in Latin"
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    "Originally phrased" is a problem you can't solve using William of Ockham.

    There is no such phrase, uttered by Ockham, remotely close to what's been claimed, Michael. In fact, you're confusing the fact that one person (Puncius) uttered these Latin phrases being cited, and another (Ockham, a decidedly English name) did not but was related to the same school of philosophy and who is today associated with the device he used so well, BUT did not utter the phrases being misattributed to him.

    "Definite source"? You've got it backwards. You start with the source and then make a conclusion such as Phrost's. Avoiding the true history of the language and device is absurdism.

    Copying quotes off the Internet is fraught with the peril of promoting bullshit.

    Here, Phrost claims that William of Ockham said this in Latin in a book once, yet there's no source Michael or anyone else can provide, making it bullshit.

    This is fake news:
    Admittedly I added the bolding to show where you are simply wrong, and have been proven wrong and now are proving to be an obtuse idiot.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You're not reading your own sources, Michael, otherwise you'd see the hairs I'm splitting. UPenn librarians make the same mistake you are..it's a very well known problem in the history of philosophy.

    Nothing you bolded is wrong, in fact it merely highlights your ignorance of Ockham's teachers such as Duns Scotus and peers such as Durandus of Saint-Pourcain.

    We come full circle to Phrost's error (attributing a very specific quote to Ockham that was not Ockham's original phrasing, and for which the given English is provably the writing of another Scholastic), and how no amount of claiming all ancient Latin spins of this phrase are the work of William of Ockham (who was not from Munich, as you mentioned...Munich is in Germany)...modern scholarship disagrees with you, Phrost, The Encyclopedia Britannica, AND the UPenn Library all at once!

    When you've had a chance to read "The Myth of Ockham's Razor" (your own source Wikiquotes...I checked, that's where you got the citation from), you'll understand.

    You're basically just falling victim to a superficial research on the subject of this "razor", and a lot of people other than both of us have dug into this subject at length.

    Here are some bolds of my own that will point our your own errors, which I hope you're willing to spend some time on. Good day, Sir.

    The Metaphysical (or Methodological) Law of Parcimony (or Logical Frugality), indicated but not very distinctly expressed by Aristotle,[4] was fully and finally established, not by Ockham (†1347), but by his teacher Duns Scotus (†1308): the greatest mind of the later Middle Ages, so unhappily cut off when he was only beginning to pass from the critical to the constructive stage. According to some biographers he died at thirty-four. Though unintelligently described by Leibnitz and others as an Extreme Realist, his Universal was only an Ens Rationis; a Brain-tool having a merely metaphorical entity. "Ens (Reale seu Naturale) est concretum," he said in his Tractatus de Modis Significandis, i., c. 25 (12): page 58b in tom. i. "Ens est duplex, naturae et rationis ... Ens Rationis ... cujusmodi sunt Genus, Species, Definitio:" in his [[In Elenchorum LL. , Q. 1, page 224 (2) in tom. i. "Est enim Species tenuis similitudo Singularium": in his Super Universalia Porphyrii, Q. 4, page 90 (4) in tom. i. The "Formalism" of the Most Subtle Doctor looks like the tentative and temporary device of a public teacher in Holy Orders; who did not wish to break openly with the dominant tradition of Realism; but was feeling his way to the "Terminism" boldly professed by his independent contemporary Bishop Durand of Meaux (†1332), and afterwards completely worked out by his pupil William of Ockham. It has lately been stigmatized by the modern semi-Scotist Professor Pohle of Breslau, as: "an inconceivable hybrid, which excludes every attempt of the mind to grasp it": p. 153 of The Essence and Attributes of God: vol. i. of his Dogmatic Theology, translated by Arthur Preuss. Both the Oxford Fransciscans (Ockham and Scotus) used indifferently the two formulas: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate": and, "Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora"; while a former very similar to the latter was used by the Most Resolute Doctor, the great Dominican Nominalist Durand; "Frustra ponuntur plura, ubi unum sufficit": In Sententias, ii., D. 3, Q. 5, N. 4. Occam's main contribution to the Doctrine was a special application to the Logic of Universals, in his characteristic formula: "Sufficiunt Singularia, et ita tales res universales omnino frustra ponuntur": In SS., i., D. 2, Q. 4 (top of col. 18). Few or no competent critics will question Mansel's judgment of Ockham, on page 40 of his Introduction to the Rudimenta of Aldrich: "The ablest writer on Logic whom the Schools have produced.... The Summa Totius Logicć of Occam is the most valuable contribution of the Middle Ages to the Logica Docens. His editor, Mark of Beneventum, said that, if the Gods used Logic, it would be the Logic of Ockham."
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_M...ccam%27s_Razor
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/07/2017 7:22pm at .

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Actually you do. But that is a side point.
    The only people who believe that you need to be knighted or a lord to be called "sir" are people who believe in nobility, royal blood, and other feudal bullshit.

    My American perspective doesn't go much further than "go **** yourself, elitist". Honorifics aside, most "Sirs" through the ages have been morally void fuckwads, whereas using "Sir" as a title of respect is far more rational and common in the philosophical literature (not to mention poetry).

    It's not a side point at all. I was the first person in the thread to point of William was a devoutly religious Franciscan monk (and not a knight...), even though many people who peddle "his" razor nowadays are atheists (hahahahahaha).

    Ockham's "simplest solution" was often "God willed it". LOL

    And Ockham most certainly never pondered in writing (in Latin) about "multiplicities" as Bullshido.net currently claims.

    In fact, the irony of combining Ockham and Hitchens in the same story was not lost on me. Was it lost on you?

    Anyways...nothing's being fixed so clearly you and others wish to choose the superficial path to the logic of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, AND John Punch.

    This is the literal translation of the English on Phrost's article...and look your own source Wikiquotes pointed out just how right I've been all along.

    Here's the mistake


    Here's the correction (from Wikiquotes where you got "i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K"
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/07/2017 7:31pm at .

  9. #39
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,333
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    The only people who believe that you need to be knighted or a lord to be called "sir" are people who believe in nobility, royal blood, and other feudal bullshit.
    Nope. To have the Title Sir before your name is a mark of being knighted. Now you can call a person sir, in place of their name or title. Such as "excuse me sir." Or "yes sir." But to state Sir William is to state that he has been granted the title of knight. You claim to be an editor yet you lack some very basic knowledge of the English language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    And Ockham most certainly never pondered in writing (in Latin) about "multiplicities" as Bullshido.net currently claims.
    Oh here you go again with this. You clearly have no clue what Ockham pondered in his writings, so give it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    In fact, the irony of combining Ockham and Hitchens in the same story was not lost on me. Was it lost on you?
    Saw no irony as it was talking about logic not theology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Anyways...nothing's being fixed so clearly you and others wish to choose the superficial path to the logic of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, AND John Punch.

    This is the literal translation of the English on Phrost's article...and look your own source Wikiquotes pointed out just how right I've been all along.

    Here's the mistake


    Here's the correction (from Wikiquotes where you got "i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K"
    First, Phrost's article still matches the Encyclopedia Britannica, and given it's 100 editors and 4000 contributors among whom are 110 Nobel Prize winners, and it's general acceptance as the premier general knowledge encyclopedia and reference... Well I'm going to take their word over your own or wikipedia. Just like I'm going to believe the good people at UPenn(and Ivy league research University) over you.

    Now you can say that you are splitting hairs, but that is just you moving the goal posts again. You tried to state that William of Ockham never made any statement at all similar, there you were clearly proven wrong. Now you are just doubling down on your initial erroneous claims while trying to dig yourself out of intellectual hole you're in.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Nope. To have the Title Sir before your name is a mark of being knighted. Now you can call a person sir, in place of their name or title. Such as "excuse me sir." Or "yes sir." But to state Sir William is to state that he has been granted the title of knight. You claim to be an editor yet you lack some very basic knowledge of the English language.
    **** "knights".

    Thank you, sir.

    You can imagine that in the words of Marcie from Peanuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Oh here you go again with this. You clearly have no clue what Ockham pondered in his writings, so give it up.
    Sure I do, enough to know that what you and Phrost are attritubing to some smartass monk from Ockham actually belongs to at least a dozen other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Saw no irony as it was talking about logic not theology.
    You're talking about monks philosophizing over sacramental wine, science, and God.

    I know the writings of THOSE monks well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    First, Phrost's article still matches the Encyclopedia Britannica, and given it's 100 editors and 4000 contributors among whom are 110 Nobel Prize winners, and it's general acceptance as the premier general knowledge encyclopedia and reference... Well I'm going to take their word over your own or wikipedia. Just like I'm going to believe the good people at UPenn(and Ivy league research University) over you.
    But how about William M. Thorburn (1918)?

    No retort? Phrost's article contains at best some line citations and nothing scholarly.

    It was clearly stated in sources posted here that the Latin phrases you are clinging to belong to other, lesser known humans (particularly "the original Latin") as Phrost put it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    You tried to state that William of Ockham never made any statement at all similar
    No, Sir. I'm merely pointing out the colloquial versus Scholastic background underlying a quotation being used in a Bullshido.net article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Now you are just doubling down on your initial erroneous claims while trying to dig yourself out of intellectual hole you're in.
    The intellectual hole I'm in is co-inhabited by Duns Scotus.

    Compared to Duns Scotus, you're as helpless as a worm fighting an eagle.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/08/2017 10:26pm at .

Page 4 of 9 First 12345678 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in