I’m really talking about things that appear to have a non-physical existence. Things like “truth”, “green”, and “hope”.
I’m of the opinion that so-called universals are nothing more than common properties of things and have no separate existence. “Universals” and “abstracts” appear to be a legacy of the platonic theory of forms, without anything substantive in their favour (AFAIK).
Is there a good argument for saying that they do exist?
These things are memes. They are concepts. Do they actually exist? Maybe. In a way the concept of green does exist physically. There are neurons in my brain that, when combined with electric impulses provided my my nerves, react to photon’s hitting the cells on my retina. So it could be said (assuming anything exists at all - which you can’t prove), that the physical nature of green consists of many physical parts (neurons, photons, electricity, and so on). The real question is are these ideas, thoughts, selves, and egos simply the sum of all of our physical parts? Or does conciousness arise out of something greater than the sum of all of our physical parts?
Is there a metaphysical requirement for thought and perception? Perhaps, but it is looking like “probably not” more and more every day. Neuro-Science is making leaps and bounds daily. They can identify via remote sensing whether or not you remembered information presented to you. They are reverse engineering the brain, and this project, more so than genetic engineering, is going to really change the world. If science can make an intelligent & feeling mind with physical building blocks, it seems highly likely that nothing metaphysical is needed for thought, conciousness, or perception. Of course, it could just mean that we had built a proper container for the metaphysical energy (soul) and just didn’t detect it going in. This stuff goes round and round in circles. There is no way to prove something doesn’t exist, and if you do, it is no longer metaphysical.
You can never say absolutely that anything exists, so it is more effective to talk in terms of percentages. So that we might say that it is highly likely that thoughts and ideas are the result of strictly physical phenomenon, but we can never be sure unfortunately.
DaLovin’ Dj
Wouldn’t the complete absence of universals qualify as a universal in its own right?
perhaps, but if truth were not a universal concept, that point would be irrelevant.
“I’ve been over what I’m supposed to say and I’ve got to tell you, it’s pretty persuasive stuff, but is it the whole truth? It’s a slice of truth, a morsel, a fraction. It’s a piece of the pie, certainly not the whole enchilada, and now that I’ve been thinking about it, I don’t think I could tell the whole truth about anything. That’s a pretty heavy burden, because we all just view the world through this little piece of coke bottle. Is there such a thing as objective truth? I wonder.”
DaLovin’ Dj
from dalovindj:
The only “objective truth” that exists is also the only “Universal” that exists.
It is the Universe itself.
Sounds simplistic because it is.
Within this Universe (I define Universe here as “all that exists”) there are, of course, an infinite number of systems. Some of these systems (which for my purposes here could either be physical [material] systems or abstract systems [which would include memes]) may be percieved by humans as “universals”; say the color Green, for example.
But without any evidence of what other species or beings from outside our sphere of knowlege feel about these same systems (for example:the ‘Green’ system) we can not acertain that ANYTHING is “Universal” other than the entire meta-system (Universe) itself.
This has consequences, I believe, in the whole God/no god debate–
It’s Pan-theism or No-theism, it seems to me…
And so is the long answer.
Once upon a time, a three-page thread existed on this topic and I exchanged some rather harsh words with much bolding in it. Now, this is all that remains. 
But, it is a good topic IMO, and I’m glad to see it again.
My short answer remains: yes.
Without universals, there is no knowledge, because no word obtains and means anything. Even if they did, propositions couldn’t be “true”. Even if we disregarded abstract “things” like propositions, there are still no “physical objects” like “apples” because there are no properties “physical objects” have that we may sensibly group in order to call them “apples”. In fact, there are no “physical objects”. There aren’t even “objects”. There’s nothing. There’s only the absence of all qualities.
That’s my perception of nominalism and life without universals.
Universals are necessary for the following objects:[ul][li]electrons[]hydrogen[]water[]drinking fountain[]school[]planet[]solar sytem[*]etc ad nauseum[/ul]In short, it is impossible to refer to anything we discuss without invoking universals.[/li]
Some wise guy once felt that universals didn’t exist except as concepts in our heads. One wonders what hoops he’d have to jump through to answer the question, “Do concepts exist?” Thankfully, I do not hold such a position, and don’t have to pretend I can defend it.
“Do concepts exist?”,
Well, if one allows non-physical things to exist then of course any old universal, concept or abstract can exist. One can then immerse onself in the bubbling jacuzzi of ontology and conceive oneself potty. If you are asking whether they exist physically, then one must appeal to physicalism.
In one form, called eliminativism, the answer is No. Concepts, thoughts and feelings do not exist. They are simply interactions of atoms.
Another form, supervenience physicalism (SP), answers Yes. Concepts, thoughts and feelings do exist. They are simply interactions of atoms.
Now, I happen to see eliminativism as a mere semantic quibble on the face of SP: a way of emphasising the point that if everything supervenes on the physical, even the very words used in discussion of SP, then one may as well deny the existence of things which require too many of erl’s “hoops” to be jumped through (even though the hoops are perhaps navigable - the lazy man’s SP, if you will).
Of course, it has certainly not yet been falsifiably demonstrated that it is possible to get a bunch of atoms to experience qualia; indeed I believe the question of whether qualia can be satisfyingly reduced to physical entities is the very Challenge of the Millennium.
However, as we understand more about the formation of neural dendrites in response to external stimuli and how, even at the point of birth, those dendrites have entangled and encrypted the original inputs into a vast, intractable web of activity called a “mind-brain”, I believe the hoops will only get bigger.
Do atoms exist? Do interactions exist? etc
whether we believe the concept of truth to be universal is just axiomatic.
everything else follows from there.
sure, in this universe, we have something definite in mind when we say something is “true”, and we couldn’t imagine it to be meaningful in any other way (indeed, we couldn’t consider anything meaningful without it), but why must we assume that this is not just something about us or something about the universe?
Axioms are not optional; whether they are ignored or not consciously considered is another matter.
The real issue to be sure to choose good axioms.
Some good axioms I’ve run across:
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don’t have film.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don’t.
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90% probability you’ll get it wrong.
When you go into court you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people that weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Good guys always shoot better than bad guys.
C:\ is the root of all directories.
DaLovin’ Dj
Those seem more like aphorisms to me…
I suppose you could call them “tersely phrased statements of a truth or opinion”, but I really prefer to think of them as “self-evident principles or ones that are accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.” The difference between aphorisms and axioms seems blurry . . .
SentientMeat:
You’re making a mistake here: that if you conceive of a Universal it exists - true but only as a physical construct in the brain representing a thought. The same kind of existence as unicorns and goblins - ie. the thoughts depicting them, but not the things themselves. The kind of existence I am meaning is one thats independant of any observer or mind (based on the premise that reality is not dependant on perception).
erislover:
(I think this quote sums up your position best)
<dons hoop jumping hat>
Concepts do exist. I can’t believe that you’d question this most basic fact. Thats like asking me to prove that rabbits exist.
You also seem to suggest that without Universals there can’t be any properties of things, and hence no descriptive language. I don’t think this is the case at all: since Universals are really just words used to describe properties that things have in common, their disappearence has purely linguistic effects.
I’m not ready to accept that premise. Reality may very well be dependant on perception. Wierd mind-over-matter occurences (like the placebo effect) suggest that to some degree we do shape reality with our perception. The Holographic Universe theory suggests that reality as we know it exists only when viewed through perception. Perception, then, determines the nature of reality - so no universals exist until perception is introduced. Based on the perception, the apparent (but illusionary) universals appear. This is hard stuff to wrap ones brain around. From the linked page:
My brain is starting to hurt again. . .
DaLovin’ Dj
I don’t question it at all; I believe universals exist, so concepts are no problem.
Yes. Properties are psychological fictions without the existence of universals. There are no apples or oranges. There is only thisness.
Those “properties things have in common” are the universals. It is those things precisely which I feel exist. When I am discussing the universal whiteness, as in “this paper is white,” I am not referring to my concept of white. I am referring to the quality the paper has. I find it to be the case that these qualities exist i.e. are real and observer-independent, though how they appear to any particular observer might be in question (qualia inversion, for example).
Well, depending on how you qualify this statement, no one would disagree. The devil is in the details.
Sounds remarkably like (though not exactly like) perception-based philosophy like phenomenology. Honestly, you’d probably enjoy it if you could find some summaries on the big four phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty). Reading them directly can be a little… tough.
How do you know they are observer-independent?