Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKamińska, Sonia
dc.description.abstractThe text is an attempt to confront a philosophical “superstition” according to which William of Ockham was a nominalist. I use John L. Austin‟s text The meaning of a word (1940) in order to explain what I mean when I say that universals are “language-rooted” (that is the most common definition of nominalism). The critique of similarities between things, the rejection of redundant hypostases, the adjuster-words – these are the concepts on the basis of which I introduce a new term, namely “Austin‟s razor”. It is exactly this term which allows me to demonstrate that Ockham‟s theory is not “language-rooted”, as William Ockham turns out to be a conceptualist, which I prove in my commentary on the excerpts from his Summa logicae. In the process I also show that Ockham‟s theory and the thought of late Austin (from How to talk: some simple ways, 1953) have a lot in common.pl_PL
dc.publisherTowarzystwo Doktorantów UJpl_PL
dc.rightsCreative Commons Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne 3.0
dc.subjectOckham w ujęciu Stefana Swieżawskiegopl_PL
dc.subjectWilliam Ockhampl_PL
dc.subjectJohn Langshaw Austinpl_PL
dc.subjectBrzytwa Austinapl_PL
dc.subjectBrzytwa Ockhamapl_PL
dc.titleBrzytwa Ockhama czy Brzytwa Austina – która ostrzejszapl_PL
dc.contributor.organizationUniwersytet Jagiellońskipl_PL
dc.description.epersonZeszyty Naukowe TDUJ

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne 3.0