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.