Metaphysica

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 219–234 | Cite as

Universals: Ways or Things?

Original Paper

Abstract

What all contemporary so-called aristotelian realists have in common has been identified by David Armstrong as the principle of instantiation. This principle has been put forward in different versions, but all of them have the following simple consequence in common: uninstantiated universals do not exist. Such entities are for the lotus-eating Platonist to countenance, but not for any sort of “moderate” realist. I shall argue that this principle, in any guise, is not the best way to differentiate aristotelianism from Platonism. In its place, I shall suggest that the best way to differentiate the two versions of realism from each other is by means of a far more powerful idea: naturalism. And the surprising conclusion given this means of differentiation will be that contrary to the usual proclamations, Platonism will be the more naturalistic theory, whereas aristotelianism will come to be seen for what it really is, namely, non-naturalistic.

Keywords

Universals Realism Properties Naturalism 

References

  1. Armstrong, D. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. 2004. Truth and Truthmakers. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, D. 2001. “Instantiation as partial identity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 449–64.Google Scholar
  4. Black, M. 1944. “Russell’s Philosophy of Language.” In The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, edited by Paul A. Schilpp. Chicago: Northwestern University Press: 227–55.Google Scholar
  5. Fitch, F. 1952. Symbolic Logic, an introduction. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gödel, K. 1944. “Russell’s Mathematical Logic.” In The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, edited by Paul A. Schilpp. Chicago: Northwestern University Press: 125–53.Google Scholar
  7. Kneale, W. & M. Kneale. 1962. The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  8. Levinson, J. 1978. “Properties and Related Entities,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lowe, E. J. 1999. “Abstraction, Realism, and Immanent Realism,” The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2: 195–205.Google Scholar
  10. Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Owen, G. E. L. 1966. “Plato and Parmenides on the Timeless Present,” The Monist 50: 317–40.Google Scholar
  12. Penner, T. 1987a. “Socrates on the Impossibility of Belief-Relative Sciences,” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 3: 263–325.Google Scholar
  13. Penner, T. 1987b. The Ascent from Nominalism: Some Existence Arguments in Plato’s Middle Dialogues. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  14. Stump, E. & Kretzmann, N. 1981. “Eternity,” Journal of Philosophy 78: 429–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentSt. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations