Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Universal (metaphysics)
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{short description|Characteristic or qualities that particular things have in common}} {{redirect|Universals||Universal (disambiguation)}} {{more citations needed|date=June 2022}} In [[metaphysics]], a '''universal''' is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.<ref>Price (1953); Loux (1998), p 20.</ref> For example, suppose there are two chairs in a room, each of which is green. These two chairs share the quality of "[[wikt:chairness|chairness]]", as well as "greenness" or the quality of being green; in other words, they share two "universals". There are three major kinds of qualities or characteristics: [[type (metaphysics)|types or kinds]] (e.g. mammal), [[property (metaphysics)|properties]] (e.g. short, strong), and [[relation (metaphysics)|relations]] (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universals.<ref>Loux (2001), p. 4.</ref> Paradigmatically, universals are ''[[abstract (philosophy)|abstract]]'' (e.g. humanity), whereas [[particular]]s are ''[[concrete (philosophy)|concrete]]'' (e.g. the personhood of Socrates). However, universals are not necessarily abstract and particulars are not necessarily concrete.<ref>Rodriguez-Pereyra (2008), Β§1.</ref> For example, one might hold that numbers are particular yet abstract objects. Likewise, some philosophers, such as [[David Malet Armstrong|D. M. Armstrong]], consider universals to be concrete. Most do not consider [[class (philosophy)|classes]] to be universals, although some prominent philosophers do, such as John Bigelow.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)