This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What is the definition of a universal that you're using?

I've looked into this since it seems like it would come up at the intersection of process philosophy and realism. People have certainly proposed actions as universals, but it has really not garnered much attention from what I've seen.

Part of the problem is that the universal is called on to explain "what stays the same" across various instances but then a processual universal must in some way incorporate change within itself.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Are actions in general (such as buying, walking, flying etc.) considered universals? — SEP lineolata

If I understand your question correctly, I suppose so sub specie aeternitatis (or from a 4-d pov) ...

I see universals as meaning only ONE kind of thing. There are different types of 'walking' but not different types of 'the number one'.

If you cannot ask "what kind?" it is a universal.

Are actions in general (such as buying, walking, flying etc.) considered universals? — SEP lineolata

Hmm. My first thought is that no, they are particulars but that the idea of any action is a universal. But good question.