ChatGPT: While Contextual Material Pragmatism (CMP) and William of Ockham’s philosophy share substantial alignment, there are some areas where they may not fully coincide.

The role of faith is one point of divergence. Ockham maintained a sharp distinction between faith and reason, holding that certain theological truths, like the existence of God, are articles of faith rather than subjects of empirical or philosophical inquiry. CMP, with its grounding in material reality and rejection of speculative metaphysics, may not prioritize or address faith-based truths, potentially diverging from Ockham’s theological commitments. CMP is more focused on material and practical realities, leaving little room for the kind of dual reliance on faith and reason that Ockham embraced.

Divine omnipotence and will is another area of difference. Ockham emphasized God’s absolute omnipotence and freedom, arguing that God’s will is not bound by human logic or necessity. CMP, by contrast, grounds its principles exclusively in material reality and empirical evidence, making divine will or omnipotence irrelevant to its framework. While Ockham reconciled this with his philosophical method, CMP would see such ideas as speculative and outside its scope.

The ontological status of mental processes may also differ. Ockham’s view of universals and concepts as existing only in the mind aligns with CMP to some extent, but CMP goes further by explicitly grounding all mental and symbolic processes in material reality. CMP may view Ockham’s framing of mental constructs as potentially underdeveloped in terms of their material basis, given its own emphasis on the brain as the material origin of all mental processes.

The separation of theology and philosophy marks another key distinction. Ockham’s theology still influences much of his philosophy, even as he sought to keep the two disciplines distinct. CMP makes no such distinction, as it is not concerned with theological systems or truths at all. This could be seen as a divergence in scope and purpose.

Lastly, universals as pragmatic tools present a subtle difference. While Ockham dismissed universals as mental constructs without independent existence, CMP recognizes the utility of universals in symbolic systems and categorization. CMP might critique Ockham for underappreciating the pragmatic role that universals play in communication, abstraction, and shared understanding, even if they are not ontologically real.

The primary divergences stem from Ockham’s theological commitments and his framing of certain philosophical issues in ways influenced by his faith. CMP’s strictly materialist and pragmatic focus leads it to bypass these concerns entirely, making it less aligned with Ockham on matters that transcend empirical reality.