Talk:William of Ockham

message: (inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Zeno of Elea. -- Heron 09:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: While "minimalism" may be a post-modern term, the concept is hardly out of place in the context of the Franciscan poverty controversy.  After all, the usus pauper (literally "poor use," but perhaps better translated as "minimal use") controversy -- which was devoted to the issue of whether Franciscans were obliged to only a legal renunciation of ownership, or to make do with a "poor use" of goods (quantitatively and qualitatively) as well -- was an important factor in the clash between John XXII and the so-called Spirituals.  (Later John XXII widened his attack and brought the whole Franciscan doctrine of poverty under fire.)  At any rate, "asceticism" does not capture the Franciscan devotion to a poor life, which (in theory at least) was certainly more "minimal" than any other Christian profession of voluntary poverty.  --24.175.70.90 04:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (random heading)

message: Is the idea that Ockham might be the basis for "In the Name of the Rose" original research, or is there some interview or other statement by Eco that this was his inspiration for his character? Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See eg ; ; ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts  (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 December 2005
>>> About the Eco reference in "The Name of the Rose":
Eco wrote himself in his "Nachschrift zur Name der Rose" (I am referring to the German translation) that he needed a detective for his novel, "preferably an Englishman". He then states that this is an "intertextual reference". This suggests that the actual inspiration for William of Baskerville was probably Sherlock Holmes. However, thinkers like William of Baskerville would have only existed after Roger Bacon and William of Ockham, and this point determined the chronological setting of the novel (1327). Eco comments that the existence of these two men made him have to set the novel a couple of centuries later than he would have liked.
- Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.18.250  (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 February 2006
I think that the text of this article is a little misleading on this point.  Though Eco may have been inspired to create a character with some of the features of Ockham, the article as it stands seems to suggest that Baskerville is a fictionalised version of Ockham (a suggestion reinforced by the coincidence between their names).  However, since Ockham is actually referred to by the characters in the novel, it's clear he is distinct from Baskerville.
Josh Parsons 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for statement about Eco

message: JA: Since this article has been placed under the aegis of the History of Science, here are some problems that I notice right off with respect to its historical accuracy.
Ockham is considered one of the greatest logicians of all time.  One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables.
JA: The first sentence is an example of "peacock phrasing", as further discussed under WP:Weasel.  Ockham of course looms large enough to rank as a mythical figure these days, but in the interests of historical accuracy it is all the more necessary to distinguish the things that Ockham actually wrote from the things that are anachronistically attributed to him.  The rest of the first paragraph fails to do that.
JA: To some extent we can get by on translations, but it takes a better reader of Latin than I to do an expert job of this, and so I will look up the appropriate tag to place on the article.  Jon Awbrey 11:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are circumstances where, for readability, peacock phrasing is at least less bad than the available alternatives - but it needs to be backed by cited facts, which is not the case here. Ockham's razor seems to have been frequently used by Ockham but it was not original to him and only gained its name centuries later. It certainly needs mentioning in the article, but it should also be clear that the myth outruns the fact. And while the next paragraph to some extent explains why modern philosophers and logicians have found Ockham worth studying, it neither says who they are nor why Ockham was intellectually important in his own period. Rewrite required, but I'd need to do some work before I could attempt it. PWilkinson 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact vs. Myth

message: Are we certain of this. I read (admittedly in some pop philosphy thing I no longer have - Xeno and the Tortoise?) that it wasn't known and could have been an Ockham in Yorkshire.84.9.162.36 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a work completely unrelated to William, Ceramic Art in Remote Ages by John B. Waring makes mention of a "Ockham Wold" in Yorkshire in relation to unearthing a cairn and a skeleton. Perhaps then, it is an obscure place in the Yorkshire Wolds. - Moscarlop (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrey?

message: JA: Citation templates are not mandated by WP, are not universally agreed to, and many editors strongly object to their use, especially for bibliographies with complex publication histories, because they lead to the loss of data and are hard to maintain.  WP guidelines advise against trying to convert citation formats without first discussing the proposal with other editors interested in the arrticle.  Thanks, Jon Awbrey 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks for the tip.  I thought I was helping.  Since we have started the discussion now: what about converting these reference to use the proper templates? Thruston 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jumping in :) - the cite templates are really not setup to accomodate the complex publishing history of the cites on this page - and their use is not required - they are mostly for us lazy folk who don't want to remember how to punctuate the cite (was that a comma or a period between the author and the title - and what citation system is wikipedia using - crap I have to look it up again). --Trödel 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Templates

message: Dear Friends: If you are interested, this article is near to Good article status. All that is needed would be inline citation of sources and a little work to bring the lead up to WP:LEAD standards. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nom Encouraged

message: I arrived on this page randomly, and was somewhat disturbed by what I found. Much of the section detailing Ockham's life was unsourced speculation, items where historians disagree, or worse. I have rewritten the section using four major sources, which have been referenced on the main page, including works by two doctorate-level, tenured professors. Any information that was in the previous versions that I could not find reliable sources for was removed, but I'll be happy to slide it back into the text if it can be properly verified. Consequentially 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography Rewrite

message: I would be interested to know the source for the quote “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”Andrew K Robinson 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Occam quote

message: His name is spelt differently in this article and the one on his Razor. Both use their version of the spelling for the purposes of the link to the other site, which is different to the spelling used oin that page. Any chance of someone rectifing whioch is correct and/or changing them both to say the same? Larklight 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ockham" is correct now (i.e. present day), but it would potentially be an anachronism to say that makes it most correct, since William isn't alive now. Since English orthography itself has changed between now and then, this comes down mostly to an arbitrary decision of style. --70.131.120.218 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name spellings

message: In his novel  , 'Eifelheim', SF writer Michael Flynn includes William Of Ockham as a minor character. In a 'Historical Note' appended to the novel he states, while speaking about the historical William of Ockham: 
"He was last heard from when he left Munich on 10 March 1349 to make his peace
with the Pope. 'Eifelheim' stands along one likely route. The date on his Denkmal in Munich is
incorrect, as we know from documents that he was alive after that point."
Being a note at the end of a work of fiction, this statement is not supported by a citation. Also, things claiming to be 'fact' in novels often are not. Stil, is it possible for anyone with the right expertise to look into the matter of Ockham's death and confirm whether there is, in fact, any ambiguity about it? If the facts mentioned in the entry at wikipedia are subject to reasonable doubt, that ought to be mentioned, perhps with a simple re-wording of the exiting statement that 'Ockham died (possibly of the plague, or Black Death) on April 9, 1348 in the Franciscan convent in Munich, Bavaria.' If the whole thing is a red herring, sorry for wasting time. 
Jayaprakash Satyamurthy 05:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death uncertain?

message: Under "Ontological Parsimony" the article reads:
" ... advocates against the Thomistic doctrine of active and passive intellect ... "
Would be nice if the link pointed to a new subsection of the Thomism page about the "active and passive intellect" principle. I don't have a good grasp on the matter, so I'll leave the editing to someone else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl gregory jones (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomistic doctrine: active and passive intellect

message: I am a physicist, not a historian, but it seemed odd to see Newton quoted as believing inertia, which keeps a body moving in a straight line at constant speed when no external forces are acting on it (Newton's first law) is a "force" (vis) rather than an intrinsic property of the object quite distinct from what are now called forces. If Newton used the same word vis for inertia and for what we now call forces, that distinction between the ancient and modern usage should be explained so as to be less confusing to people who learn their physics from modern textbooks and have never read Newton's Principia.CharlesHBennett (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics-- views of Occam and Newton on the nature of force and motion

message: Why is Chretien (12th century) listed as one of those possibly "inspired" by Ockham? Unless Ockham had a time machine (unlikely), that's impossible. I'm removing it from the article... Epn10 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chretien de Troyes?

message: "William of Ockham believed "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." [11] Ockham's theism was based solely on private revelation and faith (fideism). He believed that only science was a matter of discovery and saw God as the only ontological necessity.[12]"
This section is 100% nonsense! Much secondary material on this issue is misleading and the rubbish quoted here is an example. Ockham offered reasoned arguments for the existence of God, and he nowhere relied "solely on private revelation" as a foundation for his theism. Give a reference to anything Ockham wrote to back up this extraordinary claim! This article should really be written by someone who has read some Ockham (at least Philotheus Bohner's English translation of Selected Philosophical Writings, it's in there!). Ockham was not a Fideist and he did use arguments for God's existence. Protestant commentators who try to make Ockham out to be an antirationalist Lutheran are all alike in not having read Ockham and not referring to his actual writings. This whole article needs a very serious overhaul to make it even worthy to pass the standard of accuracy required for an undergraduate exam! I suggest it be scrapped completely and started from scratch. It doesn't just need tweaking; it is seriously and systematically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.253.67 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith & Reason and Falsely attribuing Irrationalism & Fideism to Ockham

message: "The most uncompromising Franciscans, known as spirituals, believed that Jesus and his apostles owned no personal property" ...No! All Franciscans believed this and the Rule of St. Francis (mentioned nowhere in this entire article) states that Franciscans are to follow Jesus and the Apostles in owning no property either individually or in common. John XXII overturned previous papal pronouncments endorsing The Franciscan Rule. THIS brought the Franciscans into conflict with Pope John XXII.
"After studying the works of John XXII and previous papal statements, Ockham agreed with the Minister General" (that Pope John XXII was a heretic). Then Ockham, Michael and other leading Franciscans fled the papal court. 
"In return for protection and patronage Ockham wrote treatises..." This is a lie! The treatises were to point out that the Pope has abandoned orthodox Catolicism, and were written at the request of Michael and for a mainly Franciscan audience. "...that argued for emperor Louis to have supreme control over church and state in the Holy Roman Empire." Again, this is simply false. The fact that you can dig up some secondary material saying this is of no consequence. Where does Ockham say this? "For doing this Ockham was solemnly excommunicated by Pope John XXII" No! Ockham and the other Franciscans who joined Michael of Cesena were excommunicated for "Apostacy" for fleeing the papal court at Avignon without papal permission. The article you cite by Paul Vincent Spade actually says this, and yet you cite it as saying he was excommunicated for writing these treatises. You are a charlitan!
"...though Ockham was excommunicated,(for apostacy, not heresy) his philosophy was never officially condemned." A.S. McGrade's book The Political Thought of William of Ockham: Personal and Institutional Principles. is refered to here, then why not get all the accurate information from that book, instead of referencing theological misinformation and drivel. Roger Olson's The Story of Christian Theology? Purest Rubbish! Cite Ockham's own works or at least some secondar literature by someone who has actually read what Ockham wrote! This whole article is an absolute embarrassment to history and philosophy. If it were presented to me as an undergraduate essay it would severely struggle to get a passing grade, and for deliberately falsifying citations it would get a failing grade.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.101.214 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ockham and John XXII

message: Surely "Jogh Lutterell, the former chancellor of the University of Oxford" (paragraph 2 of Life) and "Oxford chancellor John Lutterell" (paragraph 3) are the same person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.167.43 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Chancellor Lutterell

message: Why does this article give the false impression that Occam developed "Occam's Razor" when this principle (never stated explicitley by Occam ) was explicitly stated by Aquinas, years before Occam was born? Apples&lemons (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Occam's Razor Falsey Attributed to Occam

message: This article suggests Ockham "argued against the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the pope, insisting on the independence of the authority of the monarch." I suppose that's covered in the article in his writings for the emperor Louis? That's disputed a few sections above. Is the article exaggerating the importance of Ockham's arguments, or is this something to incorporate here? --BDD (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal supremacy and Henry VIII 

message: we are in disagreement about whether to address the article's subject with his last name or given name in the article body. The relevant policy is MOS:BIO#Subsequent use. You denied that, with the argument 'it's not a "last name"'. I disagree, but for the sake of discussion, let's pretend "Ockham" was not his last name. That leaves a few questions:
# What is his last name?
# Why should we use "William", when MOS:BIO explicitly states "Generally speaking, subjects should not be referred to by their given name"
# Why should we not use "Ockham", when that is what the sources in the article do? 
Paradoctor (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection rests on the false assumption that "William of Ockham" had a family called "Ockham" or "of Ockham". 
#Back in the day, people didn't yet have family names (last names), at least not in England (the already had them in more urbanized countries like Italy). "of Ockham" is merely a designation where he came from to distinguish him from other Williams. Admittedly, you are not alone in that false assumption.
#Why should we use William"? - Because when there is no "last name", there also is no "first name". There's just the name. But we could also use the full name.
#Why should we not use "Ockham"? - Because it's a place, not a person. It would be different if the term "the Ockhamite" or something like that were more common. To contrast, Thomas Aquinas has a such derivative form of his hometown in his name. We wouldn't call him "Aquin" or "Aquino" either. In Latin, William could be called "Occamus".
Str1977 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I strongly support using "William" as "Ockham" is not his surname, but a geographical designation added (by later writers only?) to distinguish him from countless other Williams. See MOS:"X_of_Y"_format. Although it does not specify how to refer to the article subject subsequently within the article, it mentions Stephen of Ripon and Anne of Cleves as examples, and in these two articles the subjects are referred to as "Stephen" and "Anne" respectively. Referring to William of Ockham as "Ockham or "of Ockham" makes no sense, and this article should refer to him simply as "William" unless there is any confusion over which William is meant. BabelStone (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'William' or 'Ockham' 

message: Why not create a new page for Occamism instead of a redirect to here?  (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have enough information to build an article? Editor2020 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then, as far as I'm concerned, you should do it. Editor2020 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occamism