- Universals are the predictables of unpredictables.
- Universals are the unpredictables of predictables.
Of 1 & 2, which one is correct?
There are no such thing as universals or particulars. Only tropes exist.
But if I had to pick I’d pick that they’re the predictables of unpredictables because I think that we assign them as a condition of perception.
Disregard “Smears;” he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I would say that in this question you are attempting a definition by inessentials. “Predictablility” isn’t a true issue in the matter of “universals” (which I call concepts). A concept is a mental entity that subsumes a number of particulars through the method of measurement omission.
An example: The concept “table.” This concept applies equally to a table that is 10 feet across or one that is 10 inches across, one with one leg, or one with 4 legs, one that is made of concrete, and one that is made of wood. The defining characterists of “table” are present in each example and instance, but the measurements are different for each concrete table.
James, I see you’re still not ready to properly explain your views. And by my holding one view and yuo holding another, I don’t think it follows that I don’t know what I’m talking about. The question was bullshit really. So I gave a bullshit answer. I don’t understand why it is that you have so much hostility. Too much leaning toward objectivity? Feeling disconnected from the world? Get over it. You may be well read, (and of this I still have my doubts), but you’re not even suited to explain your view that you’re attempting to sell on philosophy forums as if it’s some religion. Do me a favor and if you’re going to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about, then at least explain to me what you’re talking about. Thanks.
I was prepared to respond, and on the issue of universals I have, but since with the above statement you concede the fact that your answer was “bullshit,” I will simply agree with you your assessment of it, and assume that you understand the reason why It is “bullshit.”
While I had formally refused to discuss anything with you, it seems that perhaps my judgment was premature, so I will give you the benefit of doubt.
On this issue, universals, I have explained my views. My philosophy is a very long subject matter, as in deals explicitly with nearly every known topic, from metaphysics to aesthetics, and their applications to existence. Thus, in one post, or even a series of 20 posts I could not fully explain my entire philosophy, if that is what you mean. However, in each post I do make an attempt to describe my viewpoint on that topic in a clear, concise manner.
In my philosophy that is what it means. Since there is only one reality, and the truth is the recognition of it, when two people disagree fundamentally, there is no way that they can both be right.
I agree, yet I attempted to take it seriously, because the issue is a serious issue, and it provided the opportunity think and communicate on the topic.
I don’t have any hostility in general. Toward certain viewpoints which I regard as destructive, I am infinitely hostile, but again this is because I take philosophy seriously.
I don’t know how much objectivity could ever bee too much, and I fail to see the inate connection to hostility.
No.
Again, as I have taken the effort to fully explain ever position I have taken on this forum, I do not think that this statement is qualified.
My purpose on this philosophy board is to discuss philosophy. First, I am making no attempts to “sell” it, I have no interest in what other people think, whether they agree with me or not. I am interested in the process of gaining knowledge and applying it. Second, my philosophy is the opposite of a religion, in that I regard religion as a primitive form of philosophy which is totally and irrevocably wrong on every fundamental issue. I do not mean any particular religion, i mean religion as such.
I believe that I have done so.