|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{cleanup|September 2006}}
| + | #REDIRECT [[Universals]] |
| − | {{otheruses|Universal (disambiguation)}}
| |
| − | In [[metaphysics]], a '''universal''' is a [[type (metaphysics)|type]], a [[property (metaphysics)|property]], or a [[relation (metaphysics)|relation]]. The noun ''universal'' contrasts with ''[[individual]]'', while the adjective ''universal'' contrasts with ''[[particular]]'' or sometimes with ''[[concrete (philosophy)|concrete]]''. The latter meaning, however, may be confusing since [[G.W.F. Hegel|Hegelian]] and neo-Hegelian (e.g. [[British idealism|British idealist]]) philosophies speak of ''[[concrete universal]]s''.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A universal may have instances, known as its ''particulars''. For example, the type ''dog'' (or ''doghood'') is a universal, as are the property ''red'' (or ''redness'') and the relation ''betweenness'' (or ''being between''). Any particular dog, red thing, or object that is between other things is not a universal, however, but is an ''instance'' of a universal. That is, a universal type (''doghood''), property (''redness''), or relation (''betweenness'') ''[[Substance theory#Inherence relation|inheres]]'' a particular object (a specific dog, red thing, or object between other things).
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Platonic realism]] holds universals to be the [[referent]]s of general terms, i.e. the ''[[abstraction|abstract]]'', nonphysical entities to which words like "doghood", "redness", and "betweenness" refer. By contrast, particulars are the referents of proper names, like "Fido", or of definite descriptions that identify single objects, like the phrase, "that apple on the table". By contrast, other metaphysical theories merely use the terminology of universals to describe physical entities. Plato also gives examples of mathematical and geometrical ideas such as a circle and natural numbers as universals. Plato referred to the perfect circle as the [[form]] or blueprint for all copies and for the word definition of the circle.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some ancient philosophers have held the notion that universal questions exist for all, or most humans, everywhere, and throughout history. Some of these universal questions are: What exists? What can we know? What should we do? What is after death?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''The [[problem of universals]]'' is an ancient problem in metaphysics concerning the nature of universals, or whether they exist. Part of the problem involves the implications of language use and the complexity of relating language to [[ontology|ontological]] theory.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Most ontological frameworks do not consider [[class (philosophy)|classes]] to be universals, although some prominent philosophers do, such as John Bigelow.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==See also==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [[Hypostatic abstraction]]
| |
| − | * [[Hypostatic object]]
| |
| − | * [[Philosophy of mathematics]]
| |
| − | * [[Platonic realism]]
| |
| − | * [[Prescisive abstraction]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Philosophy and religion]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Philosophy]] | |
| − | | |
| − | {{credit|111344872}}
| |
