Talk:Problem of universals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been marked as needing immediate attention! Related task forces (core areas): Epistemology Metaphysics

Yikes! As a Nominalist, I take offense to the way the Nominalism section was written - it actually attacks it, saying that Nominalism "just seems insane"! Perhaps I'll tone it down a bit, switching some of those oddly first-person sentences to more unbiased thirds. - Flammicidia

As a nominalist, how can you even talk about "a bit" :P AnarchyElmo 05:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any objective analysis of Nominalism can only expose its incoherency :O)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 09:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surely the section on Nominalism in this article diverges greatly from the NPOV? Turns of phrase like "This sound right to me." should also probably not be included in an encylopedia, to say nothing of "spooky never never lands". As a (Platonic) realist I find it all mildly jarring, although somewhat amusing. - J.M.

Indeed. This section is POV both in terms of unique (individual) point of view and the universalist vs. nominalist dichotomy. As a mere dabbler in formal philosophy, I am not in a position to fix this error myself. Who wants a crack at it? -- Erik Carson 05:22, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

I fixed the Nominalism section. Almost all of it more belongs on either the nominalism page or an a 'talk' page on nominalism not in the problem of universals page. Well, actually it's not fixed, just pruned and NPOV is attempted to be restored. The last sentence I put in about reliance on base assumptions for any philosophical answer to the problem of universals, is what should be expanded upon for this article. Examples of different beliefs one may assume to get around this problem belong on separate pages.

A one-line summary of nominalism and a clearer explaination of Berkeley's position would be very helpful anyway.

Contents 1 3 Facts or Constraints about Universals 2 Heraclitus and Eurocentric bias 3 Immanent/Scientific/A Posteriori Realism? 4 Summary/Intro 5 Needs to be completely rewritten 6 Include Ayn Rand's solution 7 Wot, no Kant? 8 Relationship with Qualia?

[edit] 3 Facts or Constraints about Universals

The text is indicative of uncertainty, e.g.

"Three facts about universals, or constraints ... (if these constraints have been correctly stated) ... In other words, we can (if they are correctly stated) take these three facts as background assumptions. Definitely we have to have some background assumptions, or else we would not have any tools to evaluate any theory of universals.

Are these three facts, or constraints, generally accepted as the criteria for evaluating how well a theory resolves the Problem of Universals?

- Universals can be multiply instantiated

- Universals are abstract

- Universals are referents of general terms

rparker@patmedia.net

In philosophy, there is no consensus on anything. However you have to start from something (no, there's no consensus on that either) and as far as these things go, these criteria are pretty useful and indeed often used. I use them myself :o)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 09:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heraclitus and Eurocentric bias

Heraclitus' ideas were predated by Gautama Buddha - for which there are many examples in which, over the period of 40 years, Buddha set the groundwork for the exposition of nominalism far more extensive and profound than that of Heraclitus. As most Greek nominalists postdate Buddha, it is quite possible that they were substantially influenced by the ideas arising from his lectures. Certainly, by the Ashokan cultural dispersion around 250 BCE, Buddhist philosophy spread as far as Rome and the Levant. The Buddhist views centre on anatman - non-essentialism, but extend to 'subtle impermanence' - the basis of Heraclitus' famous assertion. In general, for Buddhism, there is no problem of universals - universals are samvrti - existing only within those conventions that accept them. (20040302 11:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Feel free to edit, amend, overturn, and scramble the article appropriately to include the material you wish included. This is wikipedia, after all. --Christofurio 13:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Buddha section is 'Asiocentric', 'Eastcentric' or 'Buddhacentric' (please use a more appropriate definition if possible), and is very speculative. It assumes that Buddha is the beginning of nominalism, and I think it is not useful to try and state such terms. Philosophy should be at the very least useful, and not to promote the foundations of a thing (for surely this means that some form of nominalism came before Buddha, and in any case it becomes an uneconomical discussion), rather than to portray the similarities between two things to avoid such prejudice and bias. This sections needs to pay serious attention to this matter or should just quite simple be removed until its neutrality can be attended to

[edit] Immanent/Scientific/A Posteriori Realism?

I'm surprised at the lack of mention of the Australian philosopher David Armstrongs extensive thought on universals, his Immanent Realism about universals is particularly satisfying in dissolving concerns about uninstantiated universals and in removing the need for an abstract realm of them.

Craig Wood - boneyboy@gmail.com

[edit] Summary/Intro

I think this page needs better introductory material that sums up what the general problem of universals IS before going into the details of its philosophical history.

Agreed - I went here expecting a good summary of the problem to get me started on a philosophy assignment, but it jumped from saying it is a problem (not what the problem is) in several areas to discussing Buddha's lectures on nominalism. 141.218.136.102 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be completely rewritten

Much of the information on this page is incorrect and displays a gross bias in its philosophical position. antirealist and pragmatist answers to the problem of universals are not mentioned, nor are russell's linguistic analysis or wittgenstein's "family resemblence" solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JFQ (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC1)

I agree. Even to the details like "As the middle ages waned and the Renaissance approached..." assumes a POV. I was under the impression that the Renaissance was a culmination of processes begun in the middle ages and far from 'waning', exploded like a firework in various directions. - Anon

Added expert tag as a consequence of the above requests. Lucidish 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the bulk of this article as it now stands, including that phrase about the waning of the middle ages. It is a traditional metaphor.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/historian/Johan_Huizinga.html

You could still say that, traditional or not, it implies a POV. Possible, but then doesn't the "explosion like a firework" image? Would the latter be more encyclopedia than the former? --Christofurio 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There's an entire separate page floating around somewhere linked from Abelard which tackles the Mediaeval situation much better than here (thinks: could be in French Wiki). This is a page full of waffle, imho: get specific, folks, please. The restructuring should be from the ontological into subjective viewpoints, which are by definition POV. Another problem is that there are as many classifications as there are philosophers, and then some, eg Paris 1180 has Realists vs Nominalist with Conceptualism in between, now we appear to have Scientific String Theoreticians headed towards Philosophic Existentialists somewhere on territory defined by Godel and Oppenheimer, under the original inspiration of Einstein - and there are links between them (see Godel). Can someone contact me to draft a better section?Jel 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is one of the poorest articles I have read on Wikipedia and actually would significantly impede anyone's understanding of the subject of nominalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantsghost (talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Include Ayn Rand's solution

Ayn Rand, the philosopher and creator of Objectivist philosophy has solved this problem.

Basic summary is here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs2

Has there been any updates on this? Shall I being writing a summary for this wikipage? -- Oleksandr 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see anything new or different in this summary that hasn't been covered by earlier philosophers. Therefore, I would not be in favor of including Ayn Rand in this page.

Aldrichio 22:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wot, no Kant?

1Z 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Qualia?

Does this topic have anything to do with the concept of qualia? There seems to be at least some similarity between it, quality (philosophy), and qualia, but IANAP, so don't quote me. Mmortal03 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)