[lbo-talk] Am I or Am I Not Charlie?

Carl G. Estabrook galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Jan 8 19:36:27 PST 2015


More literally, "beings [entia] are not to be multiplied [multiplicanda] beyond necessity," which is one of the ways (not the only one) William of Occam (d. 1349) formulated the principle, which was a commonplace among other Scholastic philosophers, especially Nominalists like Occam himself.

By 'entia' he meant not just substances but all metaphysical beings, including causes. The principle was an attack on those (principally Scotists) who posited multiple metpahysical entities (e.g. haecceitas, "thisness"). Ontological simplicity is a matter of debate in modern philosophy.

Occam's razor as used in general modern argument, outside technical Scholastic philosophy, is adequately summarized as, "The simplest explanation is to be preferred."

On Jan 8, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:


>
> On Thu, January 8, 2015 8:33 pm, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
>> "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" => the simplest
>> explanation is to be preferred.
>
> That's not *at all* what the Latin means. At all.
>
> Though this is a common overgeneralization of the famous Razor, which is a
> much more precise observation.
>
>
> --
> Michael Smith
>
> It is very easy for someone to be good at math;
> most of the time the kind of math that economists
> do would not impress a mathematician, but it is
> enough to impress people around them in the
> school of social sciences. -- Thomas Piketty
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list