Page 6 of 9 First ... 23456789 Last
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Yes the original latin. As in Ockham wrote the prhase in Latin(which he did as has been demonstrated), and so it is the original Latin.
    No because the "original Latin" isn't William's. The original Latin belongs to earlier (and later) Scholastics, which is easily proven by an examination of their texts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    No. You are attempting to rework your initial arguments into something that doesn't leave you looking like a complete idiot.
    I don't need to rework anything, Phrost's article is fluff and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Duns Scotus being the primary defender of Divine Right and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which you have claimed to reject. He also disliked William of Ockham's parsimony to the point of having him excommunicated over it.
    Hold up, show us your source that Duns Scotus excommunicated William of Ockham for "William of Ockham's parsimony". You either just gave up the whole goose on purpose, or are just really stupid.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/09/2017 8:54pm at .

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    At the end of the day folks, the same quotes in a variety of Latin (and Greek) forms, are attributable to more than one individual.

    We don't even have to get into their actual debates about God, free will, and so on. Voluntarism, the subject of this article below, is ultimately what came out of both men's philosophies, only ironically, it was largely based on God and not science. Theological reasoning, maybe. This source should put to bed any suggestion that Duns Scotus and William of Ockham were enemies. William was a devout student of Duns Scotus.

    https://socialecologies.wordpress.co...rrent-debates/

    Once you understand the complex relationship between Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, we can discuss why both men used it to promote bullshit (sometimes in Latin).

    You heard me...William of Ockham only gets his larger portion of the credit for the "law of parsimony" because he happened to be a pragmatic, reason-based theologian, as opposed to a truth-seeker (the crux of Phrost's whole article is "How to simplify things to detect bullshit").

    So, let's take a look at the real history of this "law" which not only doesn't originate from William of Ockham, but had already been recorded in many works for hundreds of years, in addition to being recorded by Duns Scotus himself.

    If you've ever actually read either philosopher, you'd know their works are mostly religious BULLSHIT. Let's just stick to one fact: Phrost and EB and UPenn all claim one person wrote the words in Latin, and get the credit in their articles., but these "razors" were once used to promote religious thought, and no real facts about anything evidence-based. That's what we needed scientists for. This is why it's ironic that scientists often point to Ockham's/Scotus' razor...and not know the real history of the men behind it.

    Speculative philosophy of any form is typically devoid of empirical knowledge. As is the case here, it's important to know the full history of the "law of parsimony" and what it was used for, in order to determine if it's truly a useful modern instrument. In many cases, it's just not going to be true.

    This has been debated for hundreds of years beyond Ockham, in philosophy AND science.

    "Razors" can always be used by intelligentsia to dismiss objective reality. William of Ockham (like Duns Scotus) used it to justify God. BOTH men own the phrases "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

    This is a peer reviewed article describing the complex relationship between Scotus and William O.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/scotus/

    John Duns Scotus, along with Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Ockham, is one of the four great philosophers of High Scholasticism. His work is encyclopedic in scope, yet so detailed and nuanced that he earned the epithet “Subtle Doctor,” and no less a thinker than Ockham would praise his judgment as excelling all others in its subtlety.
    This is Stanford University's position.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.1

    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/10/2017 2:18pm at .

  3. #53
    ChenPengFi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    7,569
    Style
    Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Shiiiiiiiiittttttttt...... According to who?
    As I recall, he's on opiates.

  4. #54
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,386
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    This is Stanford University's position.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.1

    Quoting your Stanford source:
    Among Ockham's most important writings are:

    Academic Writings
    Theological Works
    Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (1317–18). Book I survives in an ordinatio or scriptum—a revised and corrected version, approved by the author himself for distribution.
    Quote from your peer reviewed source:
    Ockham published several philosophical works before losing official status as an academic. The first was his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, a standard requirement for medieval theology students.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/#H1

    Latin Quote from said work:
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
    Place where you can independently verify that it is there:
    https://archive.org/details/A336059bis

    Exact location:
    i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K

    You saying he didn't write that:
    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.
    Well now we have Stanford University as well as the good folks at UPenn saying he did write it.

    Your original claim:
    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.
    Well he did write it. We have a source from whence said quote comes. Every source that you have cited so far claims that he wrote said work and thus said quote. The rest of what you wrote I am not responding to as it is simply obfuscation from the point at hand and your original assertion which is once again proven wrong, this time using your own sources.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Place where you can independently verify that it is there:
    https://archive.org/details/A336059bis

    Exact location:
    i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K
    You got that from Wikiquote. I pointed it out earlier, checked the text, compared it to earlier artifacts in Latin and Greek and determined it was not original, nor did it support Phrost's article. In fact, Stanford's position explicitly showed Phrost's English translation is wrongly attributed to William, i.e. wrong.

    I double dog dare you to post a screenshot of the text itself, then try prove that Williams' editor (Iohanas) didn't modify the original language at all, and also prove that the original thought and phrases weren't also that of Dun Scotus in particular, and others by extension.

    You're very focused on the phrase itself, and seem to be missing the fact that the phrase belongs to many men, not William of Ockham. Phrost's article promotes a fallacy in English, and a superficial treatment in Latin at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Well he did write it. We have a source from whence said quote comes. Every source that you have cited so far claims that he wrote said work and thus said quote. .
    But what it doesn't show is that the quote belonged to him alone. In fact, once you post the screenshot of Ockham's notes on the trial, I'm going to post screenshots of older Latin and Greek texts saying the same things.

    Quid pro quo.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/12/2017 10:21pm at .

  6. #56
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,386
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    You got that from Wikiquote.
    Nope. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy p. 458 footnote 71.
    I'm sure you know more than the folks at Cambridge too...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    I pointed it out earlier, checked the text, compared it to earlier artifacts in Latin and Greek and determined it was not original, nor did it support Phrost's article.
    Prove it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    I double dog dare you to post a screenshot of the text itself, then try prove that Williams' editor (Iohanas) didn't modify the original language at all, and also prove that the original thought and phrases weren't also that of Dun Scotus in particular, and others by extension.
    Don't have to. Your sources already did this for me.
    Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (1317–18). Book I survives in an ordinatio or scriptum—a revised and corrected version, approved by the author himself for distribution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    You're very focused on the phrase itself, and seem to be missing the fact that the phrase belongs to many men, not William of Ockham.
    You're the one who tried to posit that Ockham never wrote any such thing. You are simply wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Phrost's article promotes a fallacy in English, and a superficial treatment in Latin at best.
    But what it doesn't show is that the quote belonged to him alone. In fact, once you post the screenshot of Ockham's notes on the trial, I'm going to post screenshots of older Latin and Greek texts saying the same things.
    Quid pro quo.
    First show me where Phrost claimed that the idea originated with Ockham. It's OK, I'll wait. You are moving goal posts, and insisting on an absurd amount of scholarly rigor for a popular article.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    I missed this mistake on your part...you're citing sources (you cited Thorburn...did you not realize it?. Then when I point to the sources you cite as evidence you didn't quite read them all the way through...you claimed I'm hanging MY hat on their authority.

    Let's dissect your statements about Thorburn for a moment...whose authority on this subject is undeniable. Then let's stick to the facts that he showed (in scholarly fashion) the correct attribution of the phrases we're examining (and that Phrost got wrong and hasn't corrected).

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Don't see what a British spinal surgeon has to do with the discussion.
    ..
    you are name dropping in some hail marry appeal to authority in the hopes that it will help you, hence Thorburn earlier.
    Are you not aware that William M. Thorburn was the source YOU quoted when you attempted to claim the multi-sourced Latin (and clearly misattributed English) on the BS article was correct?

    Wikiquote (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham) is where you got 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.

    Here is a screenshot from Wikiquote to remind you of why “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.” doesn't belong to William of Ockham...it was also written in the same Latin phrasings by Duns Scotus (William's mentor).



    You then Googled up the 1495 edition of Iohannes' book written a century after William's death, to prove that the "original Latin" was Williams...when in fact I've shown numerous times it was a common phrase attributed in the 15th century to a number of men, and only became MIS-attributed en mass to William of Ockham in recent centuries.

    Stanford supports that, so does the University of Pennsylvania, and the Encyclopedia Britannica may be leaving some important background out, but otherwise your argument that the front page is accurate holds no water.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/14/2017 2:08pm at .

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    In retrospect, I created this diagram to show why the BS article was (and is) still inaccurate promoting misinformation.

    It's going to be very difficult for anyone to prove either of the following assertions Phrost made, yet they are both easily falsifiable (as I'll point out in my next post).

    1 - That William of Ockham deserves credit for "“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.” when the same phrase is found in the works of other men, in particular William's mentor.

    2 - That "“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." appears in any work by William of Ockham. This is something modern scholars agree is a common misattributed statement...William believed and practiced this, but never actually wrote it this way.

    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/14/2017 2:26pm at .

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Prove it.
    Done. See above, where I actually spent the time to create a colorful diagram tied to all the peer reviewed sources (including all the sources you've posted).

    What I submit is that that I've falsified the two assertions above: that William of Ockham coined "“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.” (this was more of a 12-13th century term of art he commonly borrowed/applied but rarely if ever truly wrote down) or that he recorded in any work, "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”. THAT part should really be deleted from the BS front page pronto, or at least replaced with the correct original William of Ockham wording (if anybody is bold enough to produce it from Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi.. Note that I asked for a screenshot of the text and nobody's attempted...hmm, could that be because the same exact phrase appears in the works of other men?

    The evidence clearly shows on point #1, his own mentor actually recorded the phrase first (but really, the phrase goes back centuries and in a myriad of formats). This implies the claim is misinformative (it does not present the full accounting of the phrase). The evidence also shows on point #2, "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” isn't even attributable to William of Ockham, meaning that promoting it as attributable to him is outright disinformative. It's fake news, and not on my authority but academic sources.

    This was a great discussion Michael. But as you know, I despise plagiarism and unaccredited authorship, something common in citing philosophical quotes, especially in the Internet age. People almost always get it wrong. This would not be the first time I saw a bunch of Latin attributed to William of Ockham nutriding and knew better. So, mea culpa for being such a pedantic douchy nerdy about it, but sum id quod sum.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/14/2017 2:30pm at .

  10. #60
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,386
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    I missed this mistake on your part...you're citing sources (you cited Thorburn...did you not realize it?. Then when I point to the sources you cite as evidence you didn't quite read them all the way through...you claimed I'm hanging MY hat on their authority.

    Let's dissect your statements about Thorburn for a moment...whose authority on this subject is undeniable. Then let's stick to the facts that he showed (in scholarly fashion) the correct attribution of the phrases we're examining (and that Phrost got wrong and hasn't corrected).



    Are you not aware that William M. Thorburn was the source YOU quoted when you attempted to claim the multi-sourced Latin (and clearly misattributed English) on the BS article was correct?

    Wikiquote (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham) is where you got 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.

    Here is a screenshot from Wikiquote to remind you of why “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.” doesn't belong to William of Ockham...it was also written in the same Latin phrasings by Duns Scotus (William's mentor).



    You then Googled up the 1495 edition of Iohannes' book written a century after William's death, to prove that the "original Latin" was Williams...when in fact I've shown numerous times it was a common phrase attributed in the 15th century to a number of men, and only became MIS-attributed en mass to William of Ockham in recent centuries.

    Stanford supports that, so does the University of Pennsylvania, and the Encyclopedia Britannica may be leaving some important background out, but otherwise your argument that the front page is accurate holds no water.
    Nope. Same footnote in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. You really shouldn't make so many absurd assumptions when doubling down on your errors.

Page 6 of 9 First ... 23456789 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