universality doesn't exist

Is anything universal amongst humans?

Even our basic traits are not universal. Not every can abstract. Not all persons can walk on two legs. Not everybody can speak or use language to convey feeling, phenomena and ideas.

IMO, what is human nature is just the bell curve or what “most” human beings possess. I would say though that saying human nature does not exist is just people being liberal, edgy and trendy (kind of like saying there are no differences between men and women).

I

Humans need to breathe oxygen, drink, eat, sleep, poop, pee. The biology creates a common human nature.

genetic studies have shown that most of mankind are pretty similar genetically as opposed to a chimp

yes. but this doesn’t mean there are truly universal traits.

Do we value loved ones better? most do, but not everybody does (sociopaths, abused persons, etc. don’t)
Do seek companionship? Most do, but not everybody does (autistics may not)

What can be deemed human nature is simply rules of thumb and aggregate behaviours.

All humans develop from female embryos.

Go ahead and give me just one counter example. :smiley:

If the universe is a finite system then we can’t really have absolutes because they will eventually decay into neutrality.
Universality is kindof like absolutism. Only certain people ‘can’ find it, out there.

Universality cannot exist if all persons are unique.

A universal statement could be something like : All water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.
This will be true no matter where or when it is said.

Universality doesn’t exactly need to be static or absolute/uniform.
It just means that something remains true no matter what area of reality you are at.

Universality is much like linguistic synonymity, and about restricting certain word-definitions to distinct concepts.

Bit of a self defeating statement this is.

saying “universality does not exist” IS and absolute statement. viz. because universality does not exist, it universally does not have existence.

That’s fairly semantic, but I think it draws point to the problem you are forced to arrive at in such a situation. By that I mean to align with more contemporary phi in feeling that such “classic” arguments such as these accomplish little as the “choices” given create a false dichotomy.