Theme 2 - Afterthoughts

After some class discussions I was able to gain a clearer definition of nominalism. It is the rejection of universals, the rejection of the existence of abstract terms such as numbers. Nominalism states that these terms are completely made up by the human kind. The opposed philosophical position to nominalism is called platonic realism. This classical position says that universals are more than only mental constructs of human beings. During the middle ages more and more people turned away from this point of view and supported nominalism instead. Therefore it somehow paved the way for enlightenment and both concepts became tightly connected to each other. One could even go as far as calling nominalism a requirement for enlightenment. The reason for this is that nominalism wants people to observe people to go out into the world, to observe things instead of getting stuck in abstract concepts. This was an important perquisite for the progress of the natural sciences. Furthermore, nominalism encourages people to get rid of the idea that all objects are the same. In the contrary: it should not be taken for granted that objects are the same.

I also had to rethink my statement about Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s position towards the revolutionary potential of culture. Now I believe that they are not able to see such a potential. This is due to their attitude that a nominalistic world view can be dangerous. They argue that it comes close to a fascist position as it tends to make people believe that things will always be the way they are. Because since the observation of objects does not include - you could say even excludes - the act of questioning things, there is no potential to change things. There is not even a possibility to change for example their own situation. Moreover, if nominalism rejects the existence of universals, it rejects important concepts such as human rights. But if we strive for progress and development in order to change the world we are in need of those concepts. Therefore concepts cannot only be seen as a suppression but also as a conception. In contrast to this is Benjamin Walter’s point of view. He is more optimistic that culture has the potential to revolutionize society. He says that there is no change in the superculture yet but that it is still to come. 

If we try to reflect on these positions in today’s context, we should focus on the effects of mass-media on society because they are similar to the thoughts of enlightenment. Media mirrors the world as it is, which assumes that an observation of the world has taken place beforehand. But by mirroring the world it makes people believe in the world's current state and in its ultimacy. It takes away people’s ambition for change. Just as enlightenment, media fails to question the world. But then again everyone is able to produce media and we are confronted with so many views and alternative concepts of the world, that media cannot be denied potential to enhance established concepts.