These two beings (James and Janet) would have same definition (since they are human beings) but their ‘ humanness’ cannot be the same. James and Janet are people of the ‘ same kind’. Universals, he argues, are not things in themselves but kinds of things. For him, universals cannot exist outside material element. He believes that universals exist but denied their independent existence. Most of his works are different from that of Plato. So particulars exist only because their existence depends on the universals.Īristotle was Plato’s student. Realities of particulars are determined by the universals. Even if it is specified, the idea of a nap sack bag suggests there are different types with different colors, sizes, shapes, etc.įor Plato, particulars imitate and participate in the universals. It does not matter whether it is handbag or nap sack except it is specified. The moment someone mentions ‘bag’, you have this universal idea of bag. Fish, dog, cat, nylon, table, bag, etc., are instances of such universals. You can try to come up with another object or thing to see if it does not fall in the class of universals. So for Plato, all our ideas of particulars came from universals. So the idea of ball suggests ordinarily that the ‘ball’ is spherical! Now you might want to argue that rugby ball is elongated ellipsoidal in shape! Another question you might want to answer is: what class of ‘form’ does it belong? I guess you are thinking ‘ball’! When you mention ball, you are simply saying the ball participate in the universal reality of ‘circular’ or 'spherical' shape. Circle is a universal word that particular things participate in. When we talk about circle, we are not referring to a particular thing. Particular are nothing but imitations of the universals. So when we mention cat, rather than having a particular conception of a cat, we think of cats because it is a quality cats have.įor Plato, only universals are real. 'Cat' is a thing that all cats have in common. So universals means those qualities many things have in common. Things like cars, fish, sameness, circularity, etc. Universals are things that are common or those things that share similarities. Universals, on the other hand, looks at the general terms we give things. These are examples of particulars and they can be seen while discussing about them. For instance, this is my dog, I am James, this is Glory, etc. Particulars are things we can point at and which only makes sense when the thing is being referred to. Particulars are definite, concrete things and names of specific things. There is a need for us to at least understand what philosophers mean by universals and particulars. This idea of forms was introduced in his argument on the universals and particulars. The real world and where thing are clear is the world of forms. According to him, the phenomena world is full of illusion. Plato believes there are two world, the phenomena world and the world of forms. To read Plato, you must understand in totality his idea of forms. He looks beyond the peripheral nature of things. Plato, a student of Socrates believes so much in the 'extraordinary'. I intend to use both Plato and Aristotle to explain the terms - universals and particulars. My aim here is to explore the debate on universals and particulars in philosophy. The enterprise called philosophy is more than anything any being can comprehend in totality. So it seems all we do is circular in nature but I tell you, it is more than that. This synthesis, by virtue of being a product of the first two (thesis and anti-thesis) is itself a thesis because there will be further enquiries into it which will give birth to another anti-thesis. Whenever there is a thesis, we always have an anti-thesis which in turn give birth to synthesis. Philosophical discourse is full of claims and counter claims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |