- Explain, as best you can, the Problem of Universals; and then state (and critique) the main philosophical (metaphysical) theories that claim to answer questions about universals. Please follow the following template.
First, you should explain, as best you can, what questions theories of universals are meant to answer. According to Crumley, for example, they are (1) attribute agreement and (2) abstract reference. Explain what he means, with some short quotes from his just-published book An Introduction to Metaphysics.
Second, you should say what universals are usually said to refer to (among those who believe they exist). There are two primary categories that almost all philosophers accept as potential referents of “universals.” These two categories are (1) properties (sensory and any other kind, including relational properties to other entities) and (2) kinds (i.e. the classes of things that a particular entity (or event, process, etc.) belongs to. For example, you have very many properties and also you belong to many different kinds (or classes). You have a material composition (so you have the property of corporeality), you are a life form (and thus have the property of being animate), you are an animal (no offense … just meaning “not a plant”), you are a homo sapiens, you are a person, you are a human being, you are both a moral entity (i.e. object of moral concern) and a moral agent (an entity that can be held morally responsible for its intentional actions), you are a college student, you are a college student currently studying at USD, etc., etc., etc. (Think here of Yul Brenner saying this while portraying the 1860s Thai King in the 1956 movie musical “The King and I”. See 14 second video clip at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JHH6iwgIek .)
Third, define “Universals” in terms of whether they can be said to exist in space and/or time, in comparison to material entities (events, etc.) and mental entities (events, etc.) The name for this general class of things is “abstract entities.” (You might want to make a small chart here to illustrate these distinctions, as we did on the whiteboard in class.)
Fourth, another way to try to explain what universals are supposed to be – though certainly not the only way – is to classify them (i.e. universals) in terms of (A) particulars, (B) categories (or sets) of particulars, and (C) abstract entities.
- Define the four major positions on universals by late Medieval times, and mention at least one major philosopher -- other than St. Thomas Aquinas – who advocates each position. (Be sure to cover both the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of each position, to the extent that both aspects have been covered in our readings and in class lectures.) Namely: absolute realism, moderate realism, conceptualism, and nominalism. (Feel free to make a chart here if you think it might be helpful for understanding the Problem of Universals.)
- Explain Aquinas' position of Ante Rem, In Re, and Post Rem universals and how he arrived at this position of absolute realism given that he is a thorough-going Aristotelian in terms of his philosophical views (and, thus, would probably – at least initially – be most attracted to the position of moderate realism).
- Explain William of Ockham's position on universals. Which of the four positions would be chosen if we only used "Ockham's Razor" (i.e. the principle of simplicity)? State another general methodological principle that might "trump" "Ockham's Razor" and that might force us to choose a theory that is not the simplest in terms of the number of kinds of entities posited. How might this apply to the debate over universals?
- Describe how Noam Chomsky's theory of the "deep structure of natural language" and Jerry Fodor's related theory of the "language of thought" seems to impact the problem of universals. Do these theories necessarily pick only one of the four major theories of universals? Or do they only eliminate one (or more) of them as plausible theories? If so, which one (or ones)?
- If you haven’t done so already, please give some short quotes from Jack Crumley, Introduction to Metaphysics, chapter 4 (on Universals) on at least some of the different theories of universals he defines and explains, and anything he says about them in his analysis that you think is interesting and important.
- Which of the four general positions on universals do you think is best? Why? (You might have to point out the version of one of the theories, in some cases.)
- In addition to the types that the ancient philosophers called "forms" and which Medieval (and later) philosophers have called "universals,” can you think of any other kinds of abstract entities that might exist (with some theorists arguing that they do exist in one form or another, and other theorists arguing that they don’t exist at all). By definition, we shall stipulate, abstract entities (if they exist) are not material and do not exist in space and time). If so, what are these other things, if they should be said to exist?