William of Ockham - Essay Example

Philosophy Introduction William of Ockham was a 13th-14th century English philosopher. He was a contemporary of Thomas Aquinas. It was Aquinas medieval synthesis of reason and faith that Ockham opposed. This opposition underlined his philosophical system and established him as a seminal 14th century thinker at the end of the medieval age. William of Ockham thought critically about a number of issues central to the medieval thinkers. Karl Marx penetratingly revealed the inter-workings of the capitalist system on a scale that rivaled Adam Smith; however, for Marx the ultimate conclusion was far more pessimistic. This essay considers the foundational elements of Marx’s philosophical system, namely the transformation of money into capital. Marx philosophy considered the commodity production process, the creation of surplus-value, and argued that capitalism was an unhealthy social process that would lead to the self-destruction of the capitalist economic system. This essay considers the nature of these William of Ockham and Karl Marx philosophic systems. Ockham’s Razor The most renowned element of Ockham’s philosophical system has come to be referred to as Ockham’s razor. Ockham’s razor is the belief that when there are a number of conflicting theories or hypotheses generally the simplest explanation is the most accurate. Ockham stated, “It is useless to do with more what can be done with less.” In this regard he is referring to the nature of hypotheses in that it’s important for the theories to have as few assumptions as possible since they are meant to explain and predict events. While there are a number of logical arguments that can be levied against Ockham’s theory, in great part its emphasis on simplicity functions to greatly simplify and support the theoretical process. Problem of Universals One of the major problems in medieval philosophy concerned how to explain the means by which things remain the same while constantly occurring in a state of universal flux. For instance, one philosopher stated that one person never steps into the same river twice. In a sense, this could be applied to all objects in nature. As everything is changing the very stability of reality is brought into question. St. Augustine and Plato disagreed with this assumption and argued that certain objects were universals and remained the same. They believed in universal essences that remained the same while outward physical qualities changed; this is referred to as metaphysical realism. Conversely, Ockham argued against the belief in metaphysical realism. Instead he proposed the theory of nominalism. He believed that rather than these entities or things having an internal essence, their similarities are instead entities the mind grants to similar things. For this reason his theory has also been referred to as conceptualism as it’s the concepts that the mind envisions and groups the entities around. Ockham states, “There is no universal outside the mind really existing in individual substances or in the essences of things…. The reason is that everything that is not many things is necessarily one thing in number and consequently a singular thing” (Ockham, pg. 11-12). As certain things can be grouped into more than one category, the problem of one or metaphysical realism is made impossible through examining the nature of reality. Faith-Reason Controversy Although William of Ockham greatly differed from the Catholic Church on a number of significant issues, he nevertheless embraced the understanding of faith that underlined the Christian religion. While contemporary Christian thought embraces faith as this central concern, during Ockham’s time it was still a relatively marginal concept. Ockham was revolutionary in proposing that reason is faith seeking understanding. Conventional medieval philosophy understood that in religion there should be reason and faith; however Ockham argued that there should only be considerations of faith. While medieval philosophers considered the extent that theology could be considered a science Ockham was an empiricist and believed that for it to be a science one had to have direct experience of God. He wrote, “In order to demonstrate the statement of faith that we formulate about God, what we would need for the central concept is a simple cognition of the divine nature in itself—what someone who sees God has. Nevertheless, we cannot have this kind of cognition in our present state” (Ockham, pg. 101-102). Natural Theology While William of Ockham embraced the concept of God and faith he raised a number of important issues relating to reason and the natural understanding of theological discourse. As a strict empiricist Ockham believed that one could not sufficiently state that there was purpose in the nature world. He wrote, “If I accepted no authority, I would claim that it cannot be proved either from statements known in themselves or from experience that every effect has a final cause…. Someone who is just following natural reason would claim that the question “why?” is inappropriate in the case of natural actions. For he would maintain that it is no real question to ask something like, “For what reason is fire generated?” (Ockham, pg. 246) Similarly, Ockham rejected that there could be any natural proof of the existence of God. As there were a number of medieval arguments that attempted to implement reason to prove the existence of God, Ockham’s argument that reason could not function in this way was a revolutionary concept for the time. One such argument concerned the natural hierarchy of existence. Theologians argued that God was at the time, and then angels, humans, animals, etc. Ockham disagreed arguing that it’s not possible to say there is truly a hierarchy, and even if there is it not necessarily the work of God. Marx Philosophical System While Karl Marx philosophical system focused predominantly on the historical progression of the economic structure of society, he also considered a number of theological concerns. Marx is renowned for his statement that ‘religion is the opiate of the people’. It was Marx understanding of religion that humans created ‘God’ in their own image. He believed that religion was developed because of alienation in life and that once alienation was done away with religion would cease to exist. It is this alienation that underlines the capitalist economic structure. While religion was gradually replaced by government in supplying a community concept, it is ultimately fallible and will be replaced by a new economic structure. For Marx one of the foundational elements of the capitalist economic structure is the circulation and exchange of commodities. Marx states that “the circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital” (Medema & Samuels, pg. 282). Marx doesn’t dwell on the emergence of capital but notes that at starting point of the process capital exists in the form of money. The difference between ‘money’ and ‘money that is capital’ is found in the way these entities circulate. For Marx, the simplest form of circulation he labels ‘C-M-C’ (commodity – money – commodity), or ‘selling in order to buy’. This form is contrasted against a form of circulation he terms ‘M-C-M’ (money – commodity – money), or ‘buying in order to sell’. In ‘M-C-M’ the money that circulates is, “thereby transformed into, becomes capital, and is already potentially capital” (Medema & Samuels, pg. 381). Marx breaks down the specific transformative occurrences that occur in the M-C-M process. In the M-C phase money is used to purchase a commodity. In the succeeding C-M phase the commodity is exchanged back again. While it is not necessary for a profit to be made on the original money (M) exchange for it to be termed capital, Marx notes that this is obviously the intention behind the exchange, “I purchase 2000 lbs. of cotton for ($)100 and resell the 2000 lbs. of cotton for ($)110” (Medema & Samuels, pg. 382). Marx deliberates on the similarities and differences between M-C-M exchange and C-M-C exchange. He notes that while the general exchange processes – money into commodity and commodity into money – are the same, there are some notable differences. In the first place the end result is the recovery of money, whereas in C-M-C the end result is a use-value. That is, while the C-M-C process ends in consumption, the M-C-M process ends in the accumulation of an exchange value. In a highly notable passage Marx discusses the nature by which ‘surplus-value’ arises in terms of the commodity exchange process. As mentioned earlier money in M-C-M exists as capital since it is involved in the exchange process, but surplus-value only arises when there is a profit that is obtained from the exchange. Marx writes, “The cotton that was bought for $100 is perhaps resold for $100 + $10 or $110...This increment or excess over the original value I call ‘surplus value’ (Medema & Samuels, pg. 382). This process of accumulating exchange values can be perpetuated infinitely and it is this process of transforming money into capital that distinguishes the individual or business entity as distinctly a ‘capitalist’. For Marx, it’s this ability of money to beget itself that underlines the transformative process. He writes, “we then arrive at these two propositions: Capital is money: Capital is commodities” (Medema & Samuels, pg. 382). Marx argues that the capitalist isn’t concerned with accumulating use-values, but rather the capitalist’s primary motivation is the increasing accumulation of exchange values. Throughout much of Marx’s writing this is portrayed as an unhealthy process (indeed, he even believes that it will cause the eventual ruin of the entire economic system). While Marx acknowledges that the process itself is beneficial as it leads to the eventual disintegration of the capitalist system, it is unhealthy as in a sense a sort of unconscious miser. Marx writes, “Only as a personification of capital is the capitalist respectable. As such, he shares with the miser an absolute drive towards self-enrichment. But what appears in the miser as the mania of an individual is in the capitalist the effect of a social mechanism of which he is merely a cog” (Marx, pg. 2). While past understandings of the economic system, notably Ricardo, believed that as wages increased the population would increase and drive the cost of labor down, Marx argues that it’s not the increased population, but the gradually integration of human machinery that drives labor costs down (Heilbroner 1999). The challenge for the capitalist system then is that surplus-value or profit is best achieved from the exploitation of human labor, yet they must reduce the labor and incorporate machinery to maintain adequate production. Marx states that, “the capitalist gets rich...at the same rate as he squeezes out labor-power from others and compels the worker to renounce all enjoyments in life” (Marx, pg. 741). What is evident here is that on one hand the worker is increasingly exploited for their labor, while at the same time the capitalist must incorporate machinery that reduces their profits as well. In all of this Marx implements religious imagery to parallel the capitalist’s drive towards the accumulation of wealth with a sort of perverted life meaning. For Marx, this drive towards the accumulation of surplus-values has no direction and he seems to indicate that in unhealthy ways the capitalist system is a sort self-perpetuating castle in the sky that will eventually come crashing down. While he acknowledges that there are periods when workers who have been thrown out of employment will be forced to accept sub-value wages, and as machines are dumped and obtained by other capitalists (progressively larger corporations/conglomerates) at bargain values, there will be periods were capital profits rise; ultimately, however the system will crash down again, until it destroys itself. Conclusion In conclusion, William of Ockham’s understanding of religion as an entity separate from science was a revolutionary concept for medieval philosophers. His concept of faith as the only true means of grasping the truth of religion is a concept that is still central to religious thought in the 21st century. Conversely, Karl Marx believed that religion and God was merely created by individuals to attempt to deal with the alienation inherent in the capitalist system. Marx expanded on how the nature of surplus value and capitalist expansion would ultimately eventually result in the complete collapse of the entire capitalist system. Marx concluded in stating that a new economic structure would emerge that would function to reduce or do away with alienation that was the underlining purpose of religion and the invention of God. References Boehner, Philotheus, ed. & trans. 1990. William of Ockham: Philosophical Writings. Rev. ed. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett. Steven G. Medema and Warren J. Samuels, The History of Economic Thought: A reader. (NewYork: Routledge,2003) Robert L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers. (New York:Touchstone, 1999) Ernesto Screpanti and Stefano Zamagni, An outline of the History of Economic Thought, 2nd Edition. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005) Read More