The Exhaustion Gridlock
June 10, 2019
Marked Among The Unremarkable Losers
August 8, 2019
The Shaving of The Razor
By Vinnie MacIsaac
William of Ockham is most famous for what is commonly called “Ockham’s Razor.” When we say Ockham’s Razor, we mostly mean his principle of simplicity. In fact, the very name of my Blog, “Simply Vinnie,” with the tagline, “Unpacking the complicated,” is an homage and tribute to the brilliance of Ockham and his Razor. However, sadly, we have tended to substantially over simplify Ockham to the point of watered-down, tasteless, skim-milk that fits the acronym K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid). The tragedy is Ockham is so much more than “keeping it simple!”
We have shaved the Razor itself! The mere fact that we must unpack the complicated to make it simple is not to say truth is simple! But instead, it can be complicated and needs a razor to loosen it from the unnecessary realm of complications to be best understood, in more general terms, before we enrich it with more complexity. However, when we are simple, at the expense of real understanding, we are doing what I call ‘shaving the razor;’ that is, simplifying to the point of meaninglessness and functional uselessness. I call this, tasteless skim-milk theology. It may be low in calories, but it is also useless in fatty meaning. We want to use Ockham’s Razor to find meaning not to shave all meaning away by the crude oversimplification for the sake of the shave.
To stop shaving the Razor, we must first understand who Ockham was. Ockham was an English Franciscan friar (1287 – 1347) who was chosen, from a young age, to enter scholastic theology by his order. That is right, Ockham was first and foremost a medieval theologian who took a strict vow of poverty and took all matters of faith so seriously that he’d rather be summoned by the Pope to defend his positions in Papal court and risk being labeled a heretic than to compromise his convictions. Unless we understand that faithfulness to theological conviction as the core of Ockham, we, in fact, will misunderstand who he was and what is the right use of his Razor.
Ockham’s problem was that scholastic theology, in the medieval era, was so heavy-laden with Greek Metaphysics that the church could not understand its most basic theological tenants unless it could see them through a pagan Greek theological lens. Aristotelian Greek logic, adopted and developed via the minds of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, before Ockham, had become the backbone of medieval scholastic theology. Philosophical Realism[i] had become Aristotelian logic on steroids and far advanced beyond anything Aristotle, Aquinas, or Scotus had envisioned. It was this metaphysical dogma Ockham developed his razor to slice through and get back to the Bible (centuries before Luther would ever show up).
To quote Doctor Ryan M. Reeves[ii] what Ockham was saying is “Christian theology is not Aristotelian Philosophy [or one of its many branches], that we just simply build our doctrines on top of. It can’t be that Christian theology is simply the best version of Pagan Philosophy.” And it is here that we can, now, understand that the meaning of Ockham is not just to make things simple for the sake of simply being “right” or most correct. Ockham used his Razor to free Christian doctrine from the mass complexities of Aristotelian logic gone to excess![iii] So, when we talk about his Razor, it is really unfounded to use that Razor to cut away anything complex and reduce things to a simplistic caricature of their full selves. Ockham was using his Razor to free the fullness of thought, not nullify it to nothingness, for the sake of mass appeal. Oversimplification is not at all what Ockham is doing. Most of us reading Ockham would very quickly find his complexity is a level of difficulty, in its own right! What Ockham is seeking to do is cut away Aristotelian Philosophy from Christian dogma to end up at Biblical theology; which of course, will put him at odds, eventually, with the Pope of his time.
For the sake of example, let’s look at a couple of Ockham cuts so we can see how he worked. That said, don’t overthink them or get lost in these two examples because Metaphysics can do that to the best of us![iv] I have tried, in the spirit of Ockham, not to over or under complicate these examples:
Example one:
Philosophical Realism includes the idea of “Universals.” Universals are “properties that can be applied to many things;” that is to say, a tree, or a car, or a phone, exist independently of their being in the physical world, “they have existed somehow prior to the physical world,”[v] and thus that is why they are real, they are eternal so they can be physical. We know this because there are more than one tree, car, and phone, so therefore they are more than what they are in front of us. [vi] Ockham cuts this down by saying; instead, properties are not eternal forms but rather named concepts, and outside of the physical world, “a tree, or a car, or a phone,” only exist as a term (name) for a concept that exists only in our minds. Yes, there is more than one tree, but tree is only a term, or name, your mind is using to understand the concept “tree,” not some abstract eternal universal form of “phone-ness” and “car-ness” that we identify physical form with.[vii] He, in essence, is not chopping metaphysics, as much as he is pruning it down to the core and thus saying, “Hey guys, get a grip! You are way over-thinking this stuff; sometimes a tree is just a tree!”
Example two:
Aristotle discusses ten categories of investigation[viii] as his primary way of classifying the world around us. For Aristotle, the categories are an investigative rubric, of sorts, for processing thinking about the world.
What the ten categories are is not all that important to my discussion here. However, for the sake of clarity they are; substance, quantity, quality, relationality, somewhere, sometime, being in a position, having, acting, and, being acted upon.[ix]
By the time of academic thinking in the age of Ockham, Aristotle’s categories had become more of entities[x] in and of themselves, rather than a classification rubric for problem-solving or investigation of the world. In short, they were as Doctor Ryan M. Reeves put it, additional proofs “added in” to make the game of metaphysics work. This, of course, was problematic for theology. Think about trying to make the Trinity fit into these ten entities of reality for it to be a real doctrine. What Ockham does is, again, point out our theology does not need all this metaphysics to work. He does this by basically saying, theologians are making up the necessity for all ten of these entities. He is saying, the inclusions of the categories are not real to the Trinity, and certainly not needed. Ockham skillfully uses his Razor and slices the ten down to only three categories. He greatly simplifies it by saying: there is Existence, Qualities, and sometimes Relationality. This is simply to say, things exist because they have substance, they having defining attributes or qualities about them, and sometimes may share a relation to other things with existence. Again, think of how much more straightforward this makes the Trinity. It exists in that God is real and has substance, it has definable attributes we know it by, and is has relationality, in that it is three in one (interrelation) and also relates to us (outsiders). Ockham would say we know this is valid because all three of these categories we see in the Bible about the Trinity. So, Aristotle is not needed and only complicates the Trinity for the sake of doing Metaphysics.
All of this is to say, Ockham is not that simple after all. But what he is doing is cutting unnecessary metaphysics from medieval theology and doing so hundreds of years before Martin Luther. He is trying to return the church to the Bible as the prime source of scholastic theology, over Aristotle. So, when Ockham says, “When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions”[xi] we need to understand, Ockham was actually talking about the reduction of metaphysics in theology. And he did not know how widely we would, one day, go slicing with his Razor. Mathematician, Philip Gibbs, correctly notes, “The Razor is often cited in stronger forms than Ockham intended.” Then Gibbs cites these frequent summaries of Ockham, as examples which were not at all Ockham’s intention:
“If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along.”
“The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.”
“If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest.”
“The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.”
. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
“Keep things simple!”[xii]
Ockham was not trying to shift western thought into its most basic forms. He simply wanted to be a good Franciscan friar, have a sound and straightforward Theology, and live out a life of poverty, like Jesus did. And for that; he caught the ire of Pope John XXII in the Avignon Papacy.[xiii] Rondo Keele, a Professor of Philosophy, in his book, “Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion,”[xiv] makes a good case that Ockham may well be the first Protestant Reformer of sorts. For, without Ockham, Luther would not have had a humanistic background, to bring about the Reformation. Keele’s case is made pretty active when he points out, the whole last quarter of Ockham’s life is not spent in metaphysics at all, but in fighting the Pope and running for his life for daring to advocate the separation of church and state in medieval Europe.
Ockham, having just barely, successfully defended himself against a Papal accusation of heresy over his view of Metaphysics, didn’t even get out of town before he sided against the Pope in another major conflict that would lead to Ockham forever being banished to exile. The dispute is a little complex because the actual discussion took place steeped in Metaphysics. However, the key fight was over the vow of poverty that the Franciscan order took and its logical ramifications on the rest of the Church. The argument goes like this: Ockham is a Franciscan friar. Franciscans take a vow of poverty. Because they take a vow of poverty, they can’t hold property or wealth. If they did, Metaphysics would say they do not fit the form of poverty or, at least, not in the way Jesus did. However, Franciscans need food, shelter, and clothes. But if they own them, then they are not metaphysically poor. So, they have an arrangement with the Pope that the Pope, who already holds great wealth, would keep their wealth but give them access to any tangible needs the Order would have.
Ironically, the Pope figures out that the Order is indirectly implying he is corrupt, i.e., not like Jesus, (since he holds property). Moreover, the Pope sees they are suggesting they are holy, or more like Jesus because they don’t hold property. Worse yet, this all takes place during the era of the Avignon Papacy, when the Papacy is already under fire from the Kings for excesses in both wealth and secular power. The problem is the Pope can’t stop holding property because he is the Pope and the very head of the church on Earth. But he also can’t have the Franciscans implying those who own property are not like Jesus because that is the same as publicly accusing him as not being like Jesus. So, the Pope’s solution is not to embrace poverty but rather to force the Franciscans to embrace wealth and own their own property! While that will not make the Pope more like Jesus, it will stop the comparison and end the controversy.
Pope John XXII
What ensues next is a metaphysical fight between the Franciscans and Pope John XXII where “Realism” and the “Razor” battle the question if Franciscans can hold property, or not, is property wealthy, and what makes one have wealth! It is a bizarre and mind-bending argument that no one wins until Ockham and Michael of Cesena literally flee the Pope and run away and hide in the Holy Roman Empire, under the protection of some princes until they die. Ockham spends the rest of his life in exile, not expounding the metaphysics for which he is known best, but arguing against the corruption of the Papacy and the need of separation of Church and State, for which he has not been well recognized enough. It is these ideas which Ockham develops on the separation of Church and State and the corruption of the Papacy, according to Reeves, that one day would influence an Augustinian Monk named Martin Luther.
I think it is correct, then, to say, when we boil Ockham down to just a simplicity formula, we miss everything! We must resist the temptation to “shave the razor” and over reduce our ideas for the purpose of mass appeal. If we make Ockham the acronym K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid), it is we who are who are stupid, or at least grossly ignorant of both his brilliance and contributions. For me, and for my blog, the mandate for how to use Ockham in the theological sense, oddly enough, is best summed up by a line attributed to Albert Einstein’s take on it, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”[xv] I am simply, Vinnie, and my blog seeks to unpack the complicated, not because complication is not real, but because It can be simplified for the sake of being accessible but never to the point being so simple, it is as unless as watered down, tasteless skim-milk. The “Truth” is rich and creamy but best poured out rather than locked up and aged into hard cheeses. The Razor, should not shave Ockham, it should shave whatever is of man’s philosophy and not of Christ.[xvi]
Let’s follow Ockham’s example and take Christian Theology back to the Bible and common sense, while at the same time refusing to “shave the razor,” and simplifying it to the point of being tasteless and useless. We unpack the truth, to bring understanding, we don’t cut the truth loose to bring a mass appeal or uncommitted seekers. We want to knock, seek, and find, but we want the theology that is worth the find!
Join my Facebook to find more
spiritual growth resources!
Related Articles:
Footnotes:
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqnIJ6qcFw
[ii] Ryan M. Reeves (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6y-3tiwO5Y)
[iii] It would also be fair to say that Ockham is not at all against Aristotelian Philosophy even, in fact, he is so brilliant at it he writes the literal textbook of his age for it. His problem with it is only that it is not needed for Christians to intelligently understand Christian doctrine. Ockham is a brilliant Aristotelian thinker. He just wants to keep theology, Christian and logic, Aristotelian.
[iv] It would be irony upon irony to overcomplicate Metaphysics in a blog about Ockham.
[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
[vi] This concept is called Nominal Metaphysics (Name or Term Metaphysics) also knowns as conceptualism and nominalism.
[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNz110GE-FM
[viii] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/
[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxhwRjH5YUg
[x] Ryan M. Reeves (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6y-3tiwO5Y)
[xi] https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
[xii] Phil Gibbs 1996. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
[xiii] The Avignon Papacy took place from 1309 to 1376, during which seven successive popes resided in Avignon, in south-east France instead of Rome. It is often called, “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy” because after the death of Pope Benedict XI, who was attacked in his own Vatican, reportedly by agents of France, the newly elected French Pope Clement V refused to move to Rome as a show of support to the French King. This was a time of great tension between the Catholic Church and various states (Nations) and the Papacy. In part, King Philippe of France and Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor used argumentation that the Church lived in lavish wealth at the expense of the Nations. The larger question the period was really addressing was who really had the power over secular issues, the state (Kings) or the Church (Popes). This is important in our understanding of Ockham because in the latter period of his life the Holy Roman Emperor would protect him as he lobbed argumentation of separation of Church on the merits of excesses in the Church holding wealth.
[xiv] Rondo Keele, Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion (Ideas Explained) Open Court; 1st edition (May 11, 2010) See https://www.amazon.com/Ockham-Explained-Razor-Rebellion-Ideas/dp/0812696506
[xv] https://quotationcelebration.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/everything-should-be-made-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler-albert-einstein/
[xvi] A counter of Ockham is the Anti-Razor, which also has value. If the Razor cuts way metaphysics to two or three entities (Existence, Qualities, and sometimes Relationality) then the rule of the Anti-Razor first suggested by a contemporary of Ockham, Walter Chatton, states, “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on.” The point of the Razor and Anti-Razor are to cut enough but to keep enough, to bring clarity.
1 Comment
Thanks, Vinnie. Check out my comment on your reference to
one of my blog posts in your article on Ockham’s Razor.