Cory Ruda Universals Whenever a concept, an individual, or an object is spoken about, it must be translated into the listeners mind

through something other than simply words, since words do not exist alone in a mind. They must be accompanied by something else, though that something is unknown, at least to a definitive definition of such. For now, however, it could be said that the accompanying thing could fall under at least two categories. These categories are: 1) particulars, or 2) universals. The particular idea which accompanies a word is that of a reproduction is nothing more than a reproduction, or copy of what the individual thinking had experienced once before. It could be a familiar object, an image that stayed with the individual since whence he saw it, or something else along that category. For example, if one were to mention a dog, the individual could picture his dog which he has had for ten years. The most important understanding in the idea of a particular is that there must be a particular and specific object pictured, and that thing pictured cannot just be an abstract generalization. To the contrary, it must be something copied from a sense retention in the individuals past, it can not be an underlying concept. On the opposite side there exists the accompanying Universal. Where a particular is a copy or reproduction of a past experience, a universal is a general, overarching concept of something that does not necessarily exist on its own. To refer to the previous example, if someone were to mention a dog, a universal idea of a dog must not be the specific dog you have owned for a decade, but a general, abstract concept of a dog that would most likely embody only the general basics of what defines a dog (ie., four legs, fur of some sort, barking, etc.) To continue this explanation, Jerry the Dalmatian is a particular dog, with black spots, white fur, and floppy ears. This dog (Jerry) is a particular dog. His black spots, white fur, and

floppy ears are all particulars, since when you refer to them and reference them in voice or mind, you reference the ears, spots, and fur of Jerry. However, the general concept of ears, spots, fur, black, and white are all universal concepts which exist, by themselves, in mind alone. This distinction is necessary to make. The response of, But they do exist in more than in mind. Since Jerrys spots are black and his fur white, how could they not exist in the real world? could be given. It is necessary to state, however, that it was mentioned that they could only exist alone in the mind. A universal cannot exist in the real world until given a reference to some solid, existing other (ie., red chair, black spot, white fur.) Every universal must have something it exists in combination with since the idea of independently existing white, or independently existing soft, or independently existing existence of doghood is ridiculous. Hey, did you see that soft over there? Ridiculous. Many theories have tried to encapsulate the reality of Universals and Particulars. The largest supported and understood of these theories come down to three modern ideals: Nominalism, Realism, and Conceptualism. Nominalism is the belief that universals are nothing but abstract concepts which, some may go deep enough to say, dont exist at all. To the nominalist, there is nothing but the particular. There is nothing that link the particular to any other object, and anything that would go as far as to do so is just a figment of mans imagination. Supporters of this theory are philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Bertrand Russell. The realist is the immediately opposing theory of the nominalist. Realists assert that truth is independent of what man believes, and that, even without any observers, truth will be truth, and reality will continue existing. They would say that, undoubtedly, universals exist, be they in

Platos realm of forms and truth, or just in the world around us. Some supporters of this are Plato, and Hume. The conceptualist, on the other hand, is the common ground between realism and nominalism. They would be quick to say that universals exist, but only within the minds of man. They, however, have no truth outside of the mind, and are only usable as ways to refer to certain ideas which can, in no other way, be presented. Supporters of this would be William Ockham, and, in a way, John Locke, as well as Rene Descartes. Each of these ideals have problems, specifically when asked how the universal, an idea, acts on and in conjunction with real, physical objects. My support, however, must go in the direction of the nominalist, or at the most generous, the conceptualist. I believe that universals are nothing more than a generalized linguistic problem, and cannot exist in any other way. They cannot exist independently, even within the mind. If I were to think of the color red, I would see red as a splotch or splash which would still be on the surface of my mind. Soft would be introduced as a sensory memory of touching a specific object which was soft. If I were to think of a car as a concept, I would think back to a specific car, or at the very least a small cartoon drawing. If otherwise, how would I understand the universal? I could, of course, read about some sort of universal which I had before never heard of, but there would be no way I could truly understand how the universal existed if not through eventually encountering the concept in real life. If I could not gain a complete understanding otherwise, how could it even exist? There would be no true evidence for me to have with it.