I agree pretty much with what you say Cavacava except that I don't think concepts are universals; I think they are particular events and are real as such.
Also I am not on board with the idea that the move is from particular to universal. For me, the two are symbiotic. We cannot perceive anything as something if we do not have a general concept of the thing. For example, we cannot see something as a dog if we do not possess the ability to conceptualize the generality 'dog', I think.
about 11 hours ago ReplyFlag
Start by asking what it means for a universal to be real before you ask whether or not they are real. — Michael
This is nonsense; neutrinos ( their effects at least) can be measured, as can time and space; that's how we make sense of these things. — John
You offer "mind-independent thing" as an example? But isn't that that the definition of a particular? So you're asking "are universals real particulars?" — Michael
You have to say "X is(n't) a real Y". — Michael
And if universals are something we cooked up, then the world isn't how we think it is. It's just a bunch of particulars. Which means our scientific understanding is wrong, however useful it may be to us. — Marchesky
"Particulars aren't real." You can certainly make that move. It's called idealism. So what is the Y for particulars if realism is the case? Themselves? Then that is the same for universals.
I'm asking whether they are something we cooked up as part of our making sense of the world, or whether they exist somehow independent of us.
If you're asking "are universals real?" is you asking "do universals exist independently of us?" then you're asking "are universals mind-independent things?". — Michael
And what is a particular? Is it a mind-independent thing? — Michael
Then you're asking "are universals particulars?" — Michael
Because all our scientific concepts make heavy use of universals. Matter, spacetime, atoms, etc are all universals. So is DNA, species, evolution, brain, mind, etc. — Marchesk
To be is to be perceived, which makes things mind-dependent, yes? I brought that up because one can deny that particulars are real, and therefore, what is the Y for particulars?
But I didn't ask if universals are "things". I stated that they are real if they exist independent of us.
And now we're close to abusing language.
Aren't universals said to be abstract? Science doesn't say that matter, space-time, atoms, and so on are abstract. Science says that they're concrete things (i.e. particulars). — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.