more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Past, present and future I take to be all and equally real. A universal need not be instantiated now.
Gist of Idea
Past, present and future must be equally real if universals are instantiated
Source
David M. Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature? [1983], 06.2)
Book Ref
Armstrong,D.M.: 'What is a Law of Nature?' [CUP 1985], p.82
A Reaction
This is the price you must pay for saying that you only believe in universals which are instantiated.
| 11037 | Colour must be in an individual body, or it is not embodied [Aristotle] |
| 12094 | No universals exist separately from particulars [Aristotle] |
| 17677 | Past, present and future must be equally real if universals are instantiated [Armstrong] |
| 17686 | Universals are abstractions from states of affairs [Armstrong] |
| 15442 | Universals are abstractions from their particular instances [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 15747 | Universals aren't parts of things, because that relationship is transitive, and universals need not be [Lewis] |
| 10724 | Located universals are wholly present in many places, and two can be in the same place [Oliver] |
| 7963 | Aristotle's instantiated universals cannot account for properties of abstract objects [Oliver] |
| 10730 | If universals ground similarities, what about uniquely instantiated universals? [Oliver] |
| 4454 | The One-In-Many view says universals have abstract existence, but exist in particulars [Moreland] |
| 10197 | An immanent universal is wholly present in more than one place [Zimmerman,DW] |
| 9486 | Why should a universal's existence depend on instantiation in an existing particular? [Bird] |