properties, which, like many that the scholastics took over from Aristotle, turns out to be unreal as
soon as we attempt to state it carefully. We thus have, instead of "essence," "all the propositions
that are true of the thing in question." (In general, however, spatial and temporal position would
still be excluded.) Leibniz contends that it is impossible for two things to be exactly alike in this
sense; this is his principle of the "identity of indiscernibles." This principle was criticized by
physicists, who maintained that two particles of matter might differ solely as regards position in
space and time--a view which has been rendered more difficult by relativity, which reduces space
and time to relations.
A further step is required in modernizing the problem, and that is, to get rid of the conception of
"substance." When this is done, a "thing" has to be a bundle of qualities, since there is no longer
any kernel of pure "thinghood." It would seem to follow that, if "substance" is rejected, we must
take a view more akin to that of Scotus than to that of Aquinas. This, however, involves much
difficulty in connection with space and time. I have treated the question as I see it, under the
heading "Proper Names," in my Inquiry into Meaning and Truth.
William of Occam is, after Saint Thomas, the most important schoolman. The circumstances of
his life are very imperfectly known. He was born probably between 1290 and 1300; he died on
April 10, but whether in 1349 or 1350 is uncertain. (The Black Death was raging in 1349, so that
this is perhaps the more probable year.) Most people say he was born at Ockham in Surrey, but
Delisle Burns prefers Ockham in Yorkshire. He was at Oxford, and then at Paris, where he was
first the pupil and afterwards the rival of Duns Scotus. He was involved in the quarrel of the
Franciscan order with Pope John XXII on the subject of poverty. The Pope had persecuted the
Spirituals, with the support of Michael Cesena, General of the order. But there had been an
arrangement by which property left to the friars was given by them to the Pope, who allowed them
the benefit of it without the sin of ownership. This was ended by John XXII, who said they should
accept outright ownership. At this a majority of the order, headed by Michael of Cesena, rebelled.
Occam, who had been summoned to Avignon by the Pope to answer charges of heresy as to
transubstantiation, sided with Michael of Cesena, as did another