more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
First we resolve or analyse a subject into its known attributes, and give a name to each attribute. Then we observe one or more attributes to be common to many subjects. The first philosophers call 'abstraction', and the second is 'generalising'.
Gist of Idea
First we notice and name attributes ('abstracting'); then we notice that subjects share them ('generalising')
Source
Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 5: Abstraction [1785], 3)
Book Ref
Reid,Thomas: 'Inquiry and Essays', ed/tr. Beanblossom /K.Lehrer [Hackett 1983], p.239
A Reaction
It is very unfashionable in analytic philosophy to view universals in this way, but it strikes me as obviously correct. There are not weird abstract entities awaiting a priori intuition. There are just features of the world to be observed and picked out.
Related Idea
Idea 20204 Whether the mind has parts is irrelevant, since it obviously has distinct capacities [Aristotle]
| 11874 | Real identity admits of no degrees [Reid] |
| 23649 | No one thinks two sheets possess a single whiteness, but all agree they are both white [Reid] |
| 23648 | First we notice and name attributes ('abstracting'); then we notice that subjects share them ('generalising') [Reid] |
| 23652 | We must first conceive things before we can consider them [Reid] |
| 23651 | Universals are not objects of sense and cannot be imagined - but can be conceived [Reid] |
| 23650 | Only individuals exist [Reid] |