I have developed a view that how unique something is — how different or similar it is from other things — is subjective. This is due to a theory I have come up with on how we form ideas of universals in our minds. Here it is.

How does one come to form the general notion of “dog”, for example? I think it’s simply that one becomes exposed to two or more dogs in early childhood, and realizes that they have some features in common. The general notion of “dog” is then thought up by the mind to more conveniently think about the certain set of creatures which possess those relevant features.

Now, let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario wherein a child is only ever exposed to one particular dog in his or her entire life. Moreover, to make it more extreme, let us say that this one dog is the only spatially-extended entity the child ever perceived. The only other entities the child ever perceived were entities lacking spatial extension, such as qualia of odors, tastes, and sounds.

I argue that this hypothetical child will have no way of conceiving of the general or universal notion of “dog”. From this child’s perspective, the one dog they have experienced has nothing in common with anything else they have ever experienced. Indeed, it is an outlier that sticks out like a sore thumb among all the entities they know about, as it is the only spatially-extended one. But, of course, since the child has only ever experienced one spatially-extended object, he or she has no way of forming a general idea of spatial extension, either. As far as the child is concerned, that particular dog is synonymous with spatial extension, as it is the only spatially-extended thing he or she knows of.

So my point is that, from this hypothetical child’s perspective, this particular dog is a totally unique entity, as there is nothing in the child’s little mental world that bears any significant resemblances to it.

But, of course, if that child were to experience more dogs, he or she would realize they have something in common with the original dog, and hence formulate the idea of “dogness”.

But I argue that, since existence is likely infinite, and since the very nature of infinity precludes the idea that there is a totality of all that exists, which set of entities you choose to compare a selected entity with is ultimately subjective. If you want to, you can compare a particular dog only to things that are very un-dog-like, hence rendering it unique. Or, if you want to, you can also compare it with a panoply of doppelgängers, rendering it indistinguishable from anything else.

What does everyone else here think?

(I am aware that my idea of existence being infinite, and thus there not being a totality of all that exists, itself needs to be argued for. I have arguments for it, but I will save them for another future thread).