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/