As I was thinking the argument between the realists and the nominalists. I realised the problem with the problem. Universals like ‘red’, ‘blue’, ‘love’, ‘cats’, ‘dogs’ can not be defined. To FULLY define a universal would be refering to a particular. All particulars have Same aspects and Different aspects. Universals look at the Same aspects while ignoring the Different aspects. All things are the Same in a way, and all things are Different in a way. We recognise universals due to a psychological construct. It is psychological, not definable by words as such. I have trouble putting ‘race’ down to words, but that does not prevent me from being aware of ‘races’. Universals are rudimentary, in that they are to be experienced. Universals are psychological constructs, putting them down to words is beyond my psychology.
If we are to say what a thing is by giving a definition of it; and if Socrates’ paleness is not what we identify in defining Socrates as of the universal man; and if definitions of what a thing is is what all things of a universal share in common, then the different aspects among us is not what is the matter in recognizing the universal man as what we all share in. Our different aspects e.g. shade of skin can be qualified in some universal as well e.g. browness.
We are a “melting pot.” This means that we are a woirld of so many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. I believe that we are the most diverse mation that there is and that is what makes us so unique here in the US.
i disagree about the psychology of universals.
the electromagnetic spectrum for instance, is not about psychology but about the reality of the universe itself. wavelengths of electromagnetic spectrum and our experience of this spectrum(ultraviolet for instance) sunburn. this is not a pshchological construct, but a real physical experience. and to ignor this effect of electromagnetic on ourselves could be deadly.
so there are universals that are NOT psychologically based.
space, movement(time), dimension and substance. all are universals and are fundamental to existence. and give rise too life. and therefore to psychology. so there are universals which were “before” psychology.
north
but how can you become aware of universals if there is no psychology to comprehend it.
you don’t actually know electromagnetic or gravity exist. but the fact of repetitive indoctrination shoves their belief into your psychology. you see EM on a t.v screen. you feel things are heavy and say the cause is gravity.
but how many different types of sunburns are out there?
please, stop arguing if you have nothing to argue about.
though I am surprised to see you interested in an old post. you might want to dig up all my old posts.
if i find an interest in a “old post” then i do.
north
there are many interesting old posts of mine if you have the taste.
the physical does not exist independant of psychology.
no, just that it is a psychological battle.
read my philosophical awakening
that goes to show you there are different sunburns which means it is also a universal.
where is your philosophical awakening? as for your last point. agreed.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=145115
I am writing a book. do you want to read my refined version of Linguistics?
In your example, the universals are BOTH psychological and real. Real, because there is something out there that causes a sunburn. Psychological insofar as we have created names for them and have understandings that lead us to react in a certain way.
This may sound like nitpicking, but it is very important (expecially for scientists) to realize that our understanding of reality isn’t reality itself, it our understanding of reality, something that arises from beings like us immersed in a certain environment. It is essential to remember this becuase the moment we start thinking that this understanding is reality we become inflexible and blind to the inaccuracies and insufficiencies of our understanding of reality.
Dave