During the seminar we were split up into smaller groups to discuss our answers on the enquiries given for this theme and also the difference between realism and nominalism.
I found nominalism to be really hard to get a grasp on even after the discussion with my group. It wasn’t until the professor clarified it that I felt that I had gotten a clearer understanding. On my pre post I wrote that “The general conditions we attach to the abstract, non-existing, objects are just names we give to groups of phenomena” but I didn’t fully know what it meant. Now I understand that nominalism do not believe in universal words, they want to minimize the preconceptions given to objects. For example nominalism can’t say a thing is red because there are different shades of the color red and nominalism do not believe in defining all different shades into one single word as ”red”. In other words nominalism do not believe in universal words. Meanwhile realism is anti-nominalism since they believe in objects having things common.
An interesting point of view regarding nominalism brought up on the seminar was that nominalism disarms revolutionary possibilities. I agreed with this because when nominalism sees a man it only sees a man and not all its qualities and distinctions from other persons. Nominalism deprives us the tools needed to develop. I have trouble ever seeing myself thinking in a nominalism way.
Another thing that I found interesting about this theme was the view on culture having revolutionary powers. Before the seminar I had misunderstood what differed between Benjamin’s point of view and Adorno & Horkheimer. Benjamin’s view on culture having revolutionary powers refers to that artists are the ones that can make a difference, they are the ones that have the power. Meanwhile Adorno and Horkheimer feels that popular culture do not have that kind of power.
Benjamin also believes that the new technology such as the new kind of cinema made it possible to actually show all different kinds of humans and not only queens and kings. And this is something positive because this allows all humans to be seen independently of their social position. Adorno & Horkheimer on the other hand feels that it only makes us stuck on how things are supposed to be. For example a receptionist is only a receptionist working for a company and does not open up to new possibilities but only makes humans lazy and not inspired to develop. Benjamin contradicts this by saying that everyone can be part of a culture reproduction, and it gives everybody a chance to develop.
I had grasped the other words such as dialectic, enlightenment and aura well since my interpretation agreed with how my seminar group and the professor explained them.
After this theme I have started to think about the power of technology.
Hi, before the seminar I had the same problem to clarify the different authors' to the culture and its revolutionary power. I think that you summarized and explained how authors' views differ in terms of revolutionary potential very well and clearly and gave solid examples. I will not be so sure as you wrote that "Adorno and Horkheimer feels that popular culture do not have that kind of power." I would say that authors believed that popular culture (in general mass reproduction) has a strong impact on society. For instance, as wrote that mass production make people lazy is a power.
SvaraRaderaI think you did a great summary of what nominalism is. I also had interpreted it differently when I read the text, but I understood it after the seminar as a movement which claims to see and describe things for what they simply are in the moment and not as instances of abstract universal concepts. Don't you think however that you can learn from nominalism and its realisation that the abstract categories we usually use are just names, while still being able to think abstractly when needed, to come up with new concepts?
SvaraRaderaHi, great analysis! I, too, had problems understanding nominalism, but more of why it could be considered a bad thing. We talked about genders and how nominalism was about thinking about it as a non-binary scale, where you can define yourself as more than just male or female. Although, as you say it could also be bad as one might fail to see the bigger picture if we only see things as they are. So in some cases I think nominalism is a good thing, but not always. You seem to have grasped the content well, and also made some excellent comparisons between the texts. Keep it up!
SvaraRaderaHello!
SvaraRaderaInteresting blog post! I agree with you that is feels difficult to be thinking in a nominalistic way, but I also agree with the comment by Ellinor above - it's a good thing to be aware of how we cathegorize things and today it's a big discussion about gender. In that case, it's a good thing. But it's difficult in the everyday life. You have to make generalizations to be able to express yourself and talk about the world.
I think it was great that you were clear about your own opinions, interesting read. Keep up the good work!
Haha I like that you end you text with a little cliffhanger about technology. In what way did the texts make you think more about this? The only way I can think of in which the texts, lectures and seminars this week made me think more about technology was by the means of which art can be reproduced. Did you have anything else in mind?
SvaraRaderaHey!
SvaraRaderaThis is a great blog and I like it very much. I can relate on how it was a bit difficult to grasp some of the concepts from the texts we were reading.
Although I agree with all of what you say I just have a comment on the part where you say that that nominalism disarms revolutionary possibilities. It is truth that nominalism does that but your example is not depicting it correctly (or maybe I don't understand it). As you mentioned nominalist can't make generalisations of any kind so they can't generalise that all man are just man. Their point of view, considering revolutions, would rather be it is as it is and man have to accept it.
As you I had difficulties understanding the concept of nominalism. I agree with most of your thoughts about this topic. But I am not sure whether you are completely correct in saying that 'when nominalism sees a man it only sees a man and not all its qualities and distinctions from other persons'. Because I understood it to be the exact contrary of this. Since nominalism negotiates abstract terms it says that we should not get stuck in abstract or universal concepts and do not take for granted that e.g. all people are same.
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaI also get interested in the power that facilitate the revolutionary of culture.In my group,we discussed the mass culture which have the potential factors to promote or not.Because in my way,I treated it as the products to service people.But it do has the leadership to the public in a certain period or even a long term as the kind of enligntenment to the public.In some degree,it could change people's life.Thanks for sharing.
Hi! Thank you for detailed analysis. You gave great example with color definition to explain "nominalism". Also I like your point that Benjamin sees everyone as of a culture reproduction, and it gives everybody a chance to develop. I did think about it.
SvaraRaderaHello there!
SvaraRaderaWhat a great summary of this weeks theme, i really enjoyed the part about nominalism. Like you i had a pretty narrow idea of what the concept nominalism meant but the seminar session opened up it more. I think you managed to cover everything regarding this theme and some of your own thoughts and ideas. Keep up the good work!
I feel like we had a similar experience with this weeks theme but you put it to words better than I did. I also felt that nominalism was the hardest part to fully grasp and that the seminar helped me as well as you to understand the concept. I think your example with the different shades of red was on point and that you overall summarized this week very well.
SvaraRaderaHi!
SvaraRaderaA well executed blog posts and enjoyable reading. I believe, as you said, that one of the more difficult concepts to understand during the week was nominalism. I agree with you, it was much easier to understand the concept after we had conducted the seminar and received an explanation by the teacher.
/Paul