Universals

            Universals may or may not exist. They are the general forms, or ideas, behind everything that we experience in the corporeal world. The corporeal world is processed through our senses. The world of universals can only be accessed through the intellect. This is essentially the Platonic version of the universals, or ideals. Examples of ideals are the form, general idea, or species “cat,” as opposed to an actual example of a cat. The same could be said for chair, lamp, candle, shirt, and so on.

            Although I like Plato’s delineation of the ideals, as he refers to them, I agree neither with him nor with Aristotle about the nature of the ideals. I do not believe that they exist on earth in the forms that represent them, as Aristotle believed, or that they exist in a kind of Platonic heaven. I recognize that the idea behind them was a breakthrough in thinking, leading to Aristotle’s delineation of species by creating the idea of a genus, and I like that this concept has been used practically, but to think that an idea actually existing somewhere is frankly a little absurd. Numbers are examples of forms, so this is akin to saying that the number two actually exists somewhere. There are plenty of mathematicians who do believe this, and I find it a bit more plausible than the idea of “cat” existing somewhere, but I also believe that it is inaccurate.

            Abstract entities create a lot of problems because they are, by definition, hard to define and to pin down exactly, and because they can only be accessed through the intellect, it is impossible to actually prove anything about them. However, there are plenty of opinions on the forms, and I stay firm in mine. Universals are merely a fabrication of the mind, and although if we had never existed, two plus two would still equal four, it would not matter because there would not have been anyone to first create that idea. 

Universals?

A universal can be defined as an abstract of what many individual objects have in common.  For example, the property of “dog-ness” is a universal of what all dogs must have in common to be called dogs.  For an inanimate object, two chairs might be said to have “chair-ness” meaning that both chairs contain something that makes them similar and consequently both a chair.  One reason universals are so controversial is due to the difficulty in creating and upholding a demarcation criterion for things like chair and creatures like dog.  For what exactly is it that makes a chair a chair?  Four legs?  Well, what about beanbag chairs?  Is it the fact that it is intended to be sat upon?  So is a bench or a stone pillar or a tree trunk also a chair?  Where do we draw the line for what is a chair and what is not?  It is obvious that these questions could continue on and on for hours, at the very least.

              It would seem to me that all objects, all creatures, are indeed quite distinct from one another (in the literal sense that they do not occupy the same space at the same time).  But to be frank, I do not believe that universals exist because it seems to me that not only are separate objects of the same kind (whatever that may mean) distinct from one another in this literal sense, but it also seems that even the same objects are continuously changing.  Even myself – the very cells and bacteria that make up my body are different from those that made it up yesterday.  Furthermore, (I plan to post the abstract to an article that describes this) there are recent finding that neurons within the frontal lobe of the human brain- the part we believe is responsible for our personality – undergo rearrangement of DNA as time goes on.  That could mean that the literal cells responsible for our personality are different, changing continuously each day.  Thus, I am, in every sense of the word, a different person than I was yesterday.  And if there cannot be any meaningful way in which I might introduce myself as the same Hannah I was yesterday or three years ago – how could I say that the essence of anything at all is the same among different entities?

            This may seem a bit off-topic, but in essence, I do not believe universals exist mostly because when I am presented with two things – perhaps they are two dogs, I find it quite easy to describe what it is that makes them distinct from one another.  Even if the two dogs are of the same breed, the same size, have the same energetic disposition; it is usually quite easy to pick out the multitude of characteristics that makes them ultimately a different dog.  However, when I am asked to describe what it is that makes them the same, I find my task extremely difficult.  The same breed – that is just an arbitrary name, the same coloring – I find myself noticing the ways in which their colors are slightly different and suddenly I find myself simply trying again to separate the things that make the dogs different from the things that make them similar.  And in the latter set, usually all I am left with is a name.

Here is that link if anyone is interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2932632/

Universals Controversy

Universals are abstract concepts shared as common features among separate things.  For example, two pieces of white chalk share the universal properties of whiteness and chalkness.

These abstractions are so controversial because we are not sure whether they exist or not.  Do pieces of white chalk actually share the concept of whiteness, or are the instances of whiteness separate?  If the whiteness is shared, then Platonic forms may exist, and perfect whiteness exists as incorporeal and separate from sensible things in Platonic heaven, lending itself out to corporeal instances of chalk for a less perfect incorporation of itself.  Another point of controversy is whether universals exist in sensibles or not.  Is whiteness physically inside the chalk or outside of it?  It is also possible that universals only exist in language and in our minds and are an accident of our abilities to categorize things and label them with words.

My opinion is that universals are actual and exist within things, accounting for shared attributes among separate things.  There are reasons that two pieces of white chalk share their whiteness.  Certain physical properties that happen to be the same, like chemical makeup, cause the pieces of chalk to appear as white.  Similarly, another account for universals is that the univerals of separate objects are physically related.  Different pieces of chalk have been cut from the same rock or the same type of rock, humans are descended from common ancestors.

Other universals may actually be an accident of our drive to classify.  I don’t know if the whiteness of the paint on the wall is the same as the whiteness of the pieces of chalk, but classifying them both as white makes life easier and more convenient, especially in communication.