Sublime

William of Occam, who held that ‘it is vain to do with more what can be done with less’.

Yes, you can do what you want—but you cannot account for the fact that your wants are effective in one case and not in another (and you certainly can’t choose your wants in advance).

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

There must, then, be knowledge that is both synthetic and a priori. Otherwise, science is impossible.

Because our self-reflective reasoning is constructed in language, we assume that if something cannot be unambiguously said then it cannot be true. But truth does not care about the limits of human language. There are many natural truths that cannot be said and, hence, reasoned. These are transcendent truths.

the Word is not an individual instance of divinity in the way that Jesus is an instance of humanity, and so to deny that there is any isomorphism between the divine supposit and what we normally understand by human individuality.

What justifies the principles of rationality? Argument, as usual. What, for instance, justifies our relying on the laws of deduction, despite the fact that any attempt to justify them logically must lead either to circularity or to an infinite regress? They are justified because no explanation is improved by replacing a law of deduction.

In short, my philosophical starting points are: “Right” and “wrong” are very real concepts which should possess great force. We should be skeptical about the powers of the individual human mind. Human life is complex and offers many different goods, not just one value that trumps all others.

Propositions about future contingents, according to Occam, are not yet either true or false. He makes no attempt to reconcile this view with divine omniscience. Here, as elsewhere, he keeps logic free from metaphysics and theology.