Plato & the Problem of Universals

This is a short introductory discussion of Plato’s theory of Forms and the problem of universals, which centers on the issue of how language and thought hooks onto reality. These clips come from a program in a series called Great Ideas of Philosophy.
#philosophy #plato

[@timadamson3378]

Bad example using manufactured ping pong balls, because the differences are harder to notice. The problem of universals is not only what things share. It is how, using universals, we can still experience and know particulars.

[@kredit787]

The mind functions by perceiving commonalities between particulars and abstracts a universal from them.

[@johnmichaelcornett3598]

Thank you!

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

A physical thing could not even exist, much less change, unless it was to some degree permanent.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Why would permanence be any more real than change ?

[@elmersbalm5219]

Nice summary but it's annoyingly slow

[@ferdia748]

There's not really any difference between nominalism and conceptualism

[@nojus7980]

Nominalism, I suppose, focuses more in a semantic method, while conceptualism takes strictly a cognitive approach

[@SuperFinGuy]

There is a very big difference, in nominalism general names are arbitrary floating abstractions, while in conceptualism the names are representations (abstractions) of structures in reality. "Redness" does refer to something in the real world.

[@rache-07]

I wish i could converse like you three.

[@nojus7980]

@@rache-07 let's converse, whatchu want to talk about

[@blackhawk4465]

There can also be a difference in terms of ontological commitment to objects that names depict