RELATED QUESTIONS:
· What are universals? Critically assess the theories of universals.
· What are general names? Discuss as critically as possible the circumstances in which they apply.
(WRITE
YOUR INTRODUCTION)
WHAT ARE UNIVERSALS
In order to understand universals or general names, it is helpful to contrast them with particulars (individuals). What then is an individual, or a particular, in the metaphysical sense of the term? Traditionally, the term “individual” is used to refer to members of a certain category of existing entities, of which each member is said to be unique. Furthermore, individuals are said to be non-repeatable, meaning that they cannot be in more than one place at a time. Examples of individuals are familiar objects of sense experience like chairs, cars, dogs and so on. Also, a room may contain many chairs that are alike in their intrinsic qualities, but each chair is nonetheless a distinct thing in one place at a time. But as it were, the universal “chair” is repeated around the room. The individuals as entities of sense experiences are said to be material; they are extended in space and locatable in time. Nevertheless, there are still other types of individuals that are immaterial and are outside space and time. On the other hand, universals are repeatable as they exist here and there in several places at the same time.
THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS
The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics about whether universals exist. Universals are general or abstract qualities, characteristics, properties, kinds and relations, such as being male/female, solid/liquid/gas or a certain colour that can be predicated of individuals or particulars or that individuals or particulars can be regarded as sharing or participating in. For example, Tunde, Patrick, and Emeka have in common the universal quality of being human or humanity. As it were, there seems to be every reason to believe in universals as they seem to be just as much a part of our experience as particulars are. But on a much more critical look, philosophical questions and problems arise when we try to specifically define their nature. Are there general truths? Is there commonality in nature or is commonality merely a fiction of the imagination? Is generality not a mere by product of language analysis? The problem of universals arises when we ask these metaphysical questions.
THE THEORIES OF UNIVERSALS
As it were, metaphysical questions demand answers, even though such answers might not exist. Regarding those metaphysical questions asked, which lead to the problem of universals, there are some theoretical attempts to solve these questions. These attempts which discuss the possible situations, in which general names may apply, have been divided into two broad categories; Realism and anti-Realism. We shall evaluate these in turn;
· REALISM
Realism holds the claim that indeed universals exist. Thus, there are general truths and there is commonality in nature. The reason, the realist argues, why things seem to share some systematic resemblance or qualitative identity in their nature, is due to the realness of universals. There are two major forms of realism which are “Extreme Realism” and “Strong Realism”.
i. Extreme Realism
This is also known as Exaggerated Realism. This is the oldest and most famous variant of realism. It is propounded by Plato. Plato’s position is that, in order to explain why different unique individuals possess a qualitative identity, we must accept that there is another entity existing apart from the individuals which resemble. This entity is what we call a universal, but Plato calls it a form. Also, Plato holds that these forms are as independently real as the individuals themselves, although they exist outside of space and time. For example, if there are ten Mercedes Benz cars; what makes them identical in nature is the form of “Mercedes Benz” that is able to manifest itself in all those ten cars at once. Thus, aside the fact that these cars are real, the form of “Mercedes Benz” is also independently real.
ii. Strong Realism
Strong realism on the other hand is said to be inspired by Aristotle. Although it agrees in essence with extreme realism, the major point of contention in this position is its rejection of the idea that universals possess independently real existence like the individuals. Thus, strong realists hold that universals do not exist independently. Their existence is tied to that of the individuals. A universal is just the quality that is in this individual and any other qualitatively identical individual. It is not an entity that exists as a form in some ideal world of its own. Since it is a universal, it can exist in many places at once, but this does not imply that it has an objectively separate existence of its own.
· ANTI-REALISM
Anti-realism entails those proposed solutions to the problem of universals which do not agree that universals actually exist in the real sense of the word. Anti-realists also divide into two camps and these are “Nominalism” and “Conceptualism”.
i. Nominalism
Nominalist philosophers outrightly maintain that only individuals do exist. For them, the problem of universals can be solved when we think about individuals in the right context, which entail appealing not to the idea of universals, but to the idea that there is a relative nature amongst individuals. In other words, the fact that there is resemblance amongst a group of things does not mean that a universal is present; it only means that there is a relative quality holding them together. There are three ranges of nominalism and these are;
a. Predicate Nominalism
This theory holds the idea that what we call universals are mere words or names used to refer to the quality predicating any set of individuals. Thus, what we call universal are simply predicates.
b. Resemblance Nominalism
This theory holds that individuals are grouped into sets based on resemblance relations. Hence, what we call universal are mere relations based on resemblance or better put, sets.
c. Trope nominalism
Tropes are special simplified types of particulars. It is held that an ordinary individual is qualitatively complex by nature, but a trope is qualitatively simple. Tropes are particular property instances of things. Thus, individual objects (like teenage humans) are complex particulars but tropes are simple particulars. For example, the quality of “male teenage human” is a particular trope distinct from the quality of “female teenage humans”, even though the two tropes are identical in quality. Thus, what we call universals are actually collections of tropes.
ii. Conceptualism
Conceptualist philosophers do not think it necessary to argue about universals. For them, generality or universality is not a feature of reality but instead a feature of our minds. In other words, universals are mere concepts or ideas in our minds which we use to express a collection of things. In this regard, a concept is nothing more, but simply a mental framework meant to assist one in understanding why some individual things should be grouped together. For example, if I request that only “Gucci” wears be displayed at a trade fair of clothes; the term Gucci is merely a mental concept which tells those displaying the wears to include only a particular brand of clothes. But this does not mean that the term Gucci actually refers to something objective that could become a universal; not at all.
CONCLUSION
The problem of universals is about their status; as to whether universals exist independently of the individuals of whom they can be predicated or if they are merely convenient ways of talking about and finding similarity among particular things that are radically different. Basically, it is the questions that arise from attempts to account for the phenomenon of similarity or attribute agreement among things is what has led to the problem of universals.
No comments:
Post a Comment