What is nominalism?

Answer

When most individuals consider something as “nominal,” they typically perceive it as a concept that exists in name only. For instance, certain countries may have an official state religion, and citizens are therefore considered “nominal” members of that religion—they hold membership in name only. Another scenario could involve an economic factor being nominal; a value serves as a placeholder until it is validated or compared with another value (such as inflation). In these instances, the concept of nominalism is generally accepted. However, there is a fascinating area where nominalism is not as easily assumed, and that is in the field of philosophy.

Philosophy has long grappled with the dilemma of “the one and the many.” When observing two apples placed side by side on a table, how is it that each one is an apple while occupying distinct space and consisting of different matter? Most people assume that a red apple and a green apple are both apples, but what makes them both an “apple”? A common explanation is that they share fundamental physical characteristics, chemical composition, and so on. However, this does not fully address why they are categorized under the same name. Moreover, a meticulous analysis would reveal that each apple is entirely unique from any other object. Are they considered the same because of a non-physical connection between them? Or do we simply label them as the same for the sake of convenience in discussing physical entities?

This brief illustration ideally demonstrates that the issue of how entities can be both “one” and “many” is not always a simple matter. Particularly for those intrigued by such inquiries, it is not straightforward. Throughout history, philosophers have attempted to resolve this issue by presenting various metaphysical arguments. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with reality, causation, and related subjects. Over time, there has been a continuous effort to address this philosophical conundrum.There has been a significant amount of debate between the metaphysical positions of nominalism and realism.

Nominalism is best understood in contrast to the view it strongly opposes, which is Platonic realism (hereafter used interchangeably with realism). Realism generally asserts that universals, essences (“what-ness”), and abstract objects exist in some form. Platonic realism, named after the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, argues that such entities exist independently, within their own realm that is entirely separate from the physical world. For instance, in realism, there exists something like Blueness or the color Blue. The realist argues that water is blue because its color somehow represents (or participates in) the universal concept of Blue. Anything that possesses the color blue is identified as such due to its connection to the ultimate Blue. The universal concept of Blue exists in a non-material and wholly abstract manner, yet it exists nonetheless. We can assert that Socrates is a man because he partakes in Man. Individuals like Socrates are always examples of the Universal (Man). These illustrations aim to present some fundamental ideas related to Platonic realism. Modern variations of realism are more intricate and sophisticated, often incorporating elements such as numbers, sets, propositions, and more.

Initially, Platonic realism may appear peculiar. To inquire about the “whereabouts” of these entities is to misconstrue their nature. Our understanding of them is derived solely from deep contemplation on various subjects, such as humanity, justice, beauty, colors, and so forth. The culmination of extensive reasoning leads to the realization that the only way to sensibly discuss such entities is if they exist in an absolute sense.

Platonic realism appears to address certain dilemmas. For instance, the query of how there can be two apples is resolved by positing that each apple resembles or exemplifies the universal concept of Apple. However, this form of realism has faced intense opposition since its inception.

Critics of Pl

Atonic realism, such as nominalists, points out many problems with this view. A major one is that realism only shifts the problem of the one and the many into the realm of universals. If we take Platonic realism seriously, we end up with an infinite regress of universals/ideas. Against the realists, nominalists argue that realism about universals and abstract objects is untenable or incoherent.

Nominalism is a type of metaphysical anti-realism. It holds that things like universals, essences, and abstract objects do not exist at all. Instead, these things “exist” simply as names given to physical (concrete) particulars. As mentioned above, an example of an essence or universal would be “Man” or “Blue.” For the nominalist, “Man” and “Blue” are simply naming conventions given to physical things. In nominalism, there is no such thing as the color blue or mankind. When one says that “the water is blue,” the nominalist does not think that “blue” is anything real. If the nominalist says that “mankind” is depraved, “mankind” will not attach to or signify anything real. As an anti-realist view, nominalism is related to conceptualism. Conceptualism holds that universals exist as mental abstractions but do not have extramental existence. There is no realm where “Blue” or “Man” exist. The conceptualist will hold that “blue” exists in his mind as an abstraction from water, whereas the nominalist will affirm only linguistic convention.

Realism and nominalism have gone back and forth for millennia. Fruitful advances have been made in helping those interested to better explicate their understanding of reality. As alluded to above, there are other problems that realism tries to address. An important one is the nature of change over time. For example, what makes the Amazon River the same river today as it was 500 years ago? Specifically, is it correct to call it the same river? If so, why? Again, it certainly seems as though the physical constituents of the thing cannot provide adequate explanation. By positing…Regarding the universal “River,” the realist can propose a potential solution. The nominalist, in contrast, raises objections to realism, arguing that universals are unnecessary, beyond our comprehension, or that they lead to more problems than they solve.

In the Christian worldview, both realism and nominalism pose challenges when reconciled with the Bible. Realists typically view universals as uncreated and self-existent. However, the Bible teaches that only God exists in this manner (Exodus 3:14; John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16–17; Hebrews 1:3). On the other hand, the Bible does affirm the reality of concepts such as numbers, sin, and humanity. It does not suggest that when God communicates with us about things, He is simply employing an arbitrary naming convention.

A potential solution to the issues raised by realism and nominalism was initially proposed by Aristotle and later refined in Christian thought by medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas. This perspective, known as “moderate realism,” posits that universals do not exist in a separate realm but rather exist within the object itself and in the mind of the knower. While a detailed explanation of this concept is beyond the scope of this article, there are compelling reasons for Christians to explore it. A Christian moderate realism can establish God as metaphysically supreme while offering a framework for addressing universals and particulars. In contrast, nominalism appears to strip many passages in Scripture of objective meaning, making it challenging to gain acceptance among Christians.