John Locke's nominalism serves as the metaphysical foundation for the modern rights-based political theory that Father Ernest Fortin famously critiqued. While Locke developed his nominalism in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding and his political theory in the Two Treatises of Government , Fortin’s critique exposes the deep tension between Locke’s non-teleological metaphysics and the pre-modern, teleological natural law tradition. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] The relationship between Locke’s nominalism and Fortin's critique spans across three major pillars: 1. Locke’s Metaphysics: Nominalism vs. Real Essence In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Locke rejects the Aristotelian and Scholastic concept of universal "substantial forms" existing in nature. He argues that: [ 1 , 2 ] All existing things are particulars: Nature only produces individual objects. [ 1 , 2 ] Real vs. Nominal Essence: Locke argues that things have a "real essence" (their unk...
Googe AI: The Flaw in Tierney’s "Continuity" Thesis Canavan acknowledges that Tierney did brilliant historical work proving that the language of individual rights existed in the Middle Ages. However, Canavan argues that Tierney commits a massive philosophical error by conflating linguistic continuity with philosophical continuity.... Canavan argues that Tierney’s defense of Locke is a historical illusion. By tracing the ideas from Ockham to Blackmun, Canavan demonstrates that modern rights-talk did not organically mature from medieval Catholic natural law. Instead, it was an intellectual mutation fueled by nominalism. By prioritizing individual will over objective nature, Locke set off a chain reaction that inevitably led to Blackmun's secular, hyper-individualistic jurisprudence, where the individual’s choice supersedes the cosmic moral order.
The critique you are referencing comes from Father Francis Canavan, S.J. (a prominent political scientist, Edmund Burke scholar, and Fordham University professor). Canavan aligned closely with Ernest Fortin and the broader Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. Canavan’s critique explicitly bridges the gap between medieval metaphysics and modern jurisprudence. He famously uses a sweeping historical trajectory— from William of Ockham to Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun (the author of Roe v. Wade )—to counter Brian Tierney’s defense of John Locke . [ 1 ] Canavan’s argument dismantles Tierney’s thesis through the following progression: 1. The Flaw in Tierney’s "Continuity" Thesis Canavan acknowledges that Tierney did brilliant historical work proving that the language of individual rights existed in the Middle Ages. However, Canavan argues that Tierney commits a massive philosophical error by conflating linguistic continuity with philosophical continuity . Just because a ...