Before moving into detailed exposition of the controversy between Realism and Nominalism proper, let us first reflect on several specific reasons why such a seemingly abstruse topic is important in the first place. Theologian Colin Brown sets the stage for the debate:

When we talk about goodness, or even perhaps the colour green, is there such a thing as goodness or greenness (a universal, to use the technical jargon) which exists over and above particular things? Or do goodness and greenness exist only in particular objects? If so, does this mean that, when we use such terms, it is only just a fashion of speaking? Might this not even mean that so much of our everyday language is a matter of convenience, and that in fact there are no real entities which correspond to many of our words which look so solid, respectable, and meaningful?

Medieval thinkers differed a lot in the answers that they gave. The Realists followed Plato in holding that universals were real. The things that we see and touch are really copies of an eternal archetype which in some way has brought them into being. The Nominalists took the opposite view. They rejected the idea of universals altogether. They believed that there was no such thing as goodness or greenness apart from particular good or green things, and that all such general, abstract words were merely a manner of speaking. The Conceptualists steered a middle course. They took the view of Aristotle that universals do, in fact, belong to the realm of thought; but they also stand for something which is actually there which gives unity to the diversity of the world of our experience.[1]

Now at first glance it seems obvious that no “ordinary” person would think to ask questions such as the ones described above. This is especially so in our age of “practicality”, which generally disdains the theoretical in favor of “daily living” and “relevance” to narrow, Modern concerns. Why indeed is such a seemingly abstruse subject as this important? I offer five reasons why the debate between Realism and Nominalism is important in its own right, but particularly for children of the Reformation:

Ideas have consequences. Many of our brethren in the past cared intensely about these questions, and since we live in the world that their debates and activities largely created, we must try to understand these ideas.[2] For those who are concerned with “practicality”, it may come as a shock to realize that such ideas as those expressed above by Brown were not mere abstract fancies of “prideful” intellects, but actually shaped twenty-five hundred years of daily

[1] Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), pp. 18-19.

[2] As Brown also notes, “If we know something of the history of ideas and the numerous debates surrounding them, we are in a much better position to appreciate and evaluate the ideas and movements of our own day.” (Ibid., pg. 286)

[1] I must acknowledge my debt to my History teacher, Christopher Schlect, of New St. Andrews College, for making this point about viewing our predecessors in the Faith first as brothers, and second as men to be criticized.