# Do universals exist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713 "2004-02-17T21:33:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/101 "2004-03-03T05:16:58Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Of course not, because any attempt to seek evidence requires such prior claims as universals to be known, and if you refuse to answer them, then you will refuse to know. But your answer is based on assumptions. If realism is the way it is, I say universals could exist. If not, I’m a conceptualist. But there’s no way to tell. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/102 "2004-03-03T14:48:38Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > But your answer is based on assumptions. How true it is. > [@](#): > > But there’s no way to tell. So you keep saying, but I still wonder, “What _can_ you tell?” ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/103 "2004-03-03T18:09:55Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > “What _can_ you tell?” Does the ‘can’ mean accurately, as in really? If so, nothing except that you exist. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/104 "2004-03-03T18:16:12Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Does the ‘can’ mean accurately, as in really? If so, nothing except that you exist. I’ve seen a man or two challenge even that claim. One wonders (“one” being “me”) how you can “really” know you exist, but that those methods of evaluation somehow manage to fail for everything else… including the process of learning what the word “exist” means so that you may self-apply it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/105 "2004-03-03T18:23:34Z")
Sorry for coming in late. My opinions: It is impossible to prove one’s own existence without begging the question; and with respect to universal truth, that too is impossible since the statement “there is universal truth” would have to be analytically true. It isn’t, so there isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/106 "2004-03-03T18:24:47Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I’ve seen a man or two challenge even that claim. One wonders (“one” being “me”) how you can “really” know you exist, but that those methods of evaluation somehow manage to fail for everything else… including the process of learning what the word “exist” means so that you may self-apply it. Within a solipsistic worldview, you still have this “external world” out there. ‘Really’ means whatever the word connotes in one’s constructed meaning. Ultimately, it’s all matter in motion and is just **is**. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/107 "2004-03-05T14:07:48Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Within a solipsistic worldview, you still have this “external world” out there. ‘Really’ means whatever the word connotes in one’s constructed meaning. Ultimately, it’s all matter in motion and is just **is**. Matter, as opposed to what? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/108 "2004-03-05T20:19:42Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Matter, as opposed to what? Nothing. Just a label for whatever there is. I just rephrased Baron d’Holbach’s sentiments. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/109 "2004-03-05T20:25:48Z")
You seem to be targetting my use of universals constructed by meaning as a indicator of real “universals” existence. Ain’t much fun. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/110 "2004-03-05T20:34:22Z")
You seem to retreat to solipsism anytime the question demands an answer. If that’s your bag, fine. I don’t understand the motivation for solipsism, nor do I find it particularly insightful at all. But you’ve got me, you can’t beat solipsism, either, it is rock solid skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/111 "2004-03-05T22:08:25Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I don’t understand the motivation for solipsism, nor do I find it particularly insightful at all. And what genuine insights does one get with realism? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/112 "2004-03-06T04:44:30Z")
Eris, In defense of solipsism: When one understands that one’s experience of reality, while all you got, is not reality, and that other’s experiences of reality may be similar to yours but may not be the same as yours, then one approaches the group process of communication and knowledge building with the caution that it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713/113 "2004-03-06T16:01:40Z")
No need to argue with me. I’m not even really here. And I don’t want to argue solipsism, it is just impossible. You will always be right because you are the only one who has anything to say about correctness. If you’ll excuse me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-universals-exist/229713.md?page=5)