more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 4446
[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / D. Universals / 4. Uninstantiated Universals
]
Full Idea
There are some who claim that there can be uninstantiated universals, which are not exemplified by any particular, past, present or future; this would certainly imply that those universals have a Platonic transcendent existence outside time and space.
Gist of Idea
It is claimed that some universals are not exemplified by any particular, so must exist separately
Source
David M. Armstrong (Universals [1995], p.504)
Book Ref
'A Companion to Metaphysics', ed/tr. Kim,Jaegwon/Sosa,Ernest [Blackwell 1995], p.504
A Reaction
Presumably this is potentially circular or defeasible, because one can deny the universal simply because there is no particular.
The
14 ideas
from 'Universals'
|
4440
|
'Resemblance Nominalism' finds that in practice the construction of resemblance classes is hard
[Armstrong]
|
|
4439
|
'Resemblance Nominalism' says properties are resemblances between classes of particulars
[Armstrong]
|
|
4432
|
'Concept Nominalism' says a 'universal' property is just a mental concept applied to lots of things
[Armstrong]
|
|
4431
|
'Predicate Nominalism' says that a 'universal' property is just a predicate applied to lots of things
[Armstrong]
|
|
4433
|
Concept and predicate nominalism miss out some predicates, and may be viciously regressive
[Armstrong]
|
|
4436
|
'Class Nominalism' may explain properties if we stick to 'natural' sets, and ignore random ones
[Armstrong]
|
|
4434
|
'Class Nominalism' says that properties or kinds are merely membership of a set (e.g. of white things)
[Armstrong]
|
|
4435
|
'Class Nominalism' cannot explain co-extensive properties, or sets with random members
[Armstrong]
|
|
4437
|
'Mereological Nominalism' sees whiteness as a huge white object consisting of all the white things
[Armstrong]
|
|
4438
|
'Mereological Nominalism' may work for whiteness, but it doesn't seem to work for squareness
[Armstrong]
|
|
4444
|
One moderate nominalist view says that properties and relations exist, but they are particulars
[Armstrong]
|
|
4445
|
If properties and relations are particulars, there is still the problem of how to classify and group them
[Armstrong]
|
|
4446
|
It is claimed that some universals are not exemplified by any particular, so must exist separately
[Armstrong]
|
|
4448
|
Should we decide which universals exist a priori (through words), or a posteriori (through science)?
[Armstrong]
|