i was strugglling to understand this in university for a whole semester, but here i am, understood it in 10 minutes just like that! you're a genius! thank you!
He speaks to the flaw of averages. If in one hand you hold a random series of numbers, and in your other hand you have a single number which is the average value of the numbers in the first hand, you'll find that the average value is rarely present in the first hand. The number which represents the group, is entirely different from the numbers within the group.
This is ontology and mereology. Ontology - all things are a set of distinguishing attributes and boundary conditions in a mind according to a purpose. All of them have a physical correlate and some of them have a physical referent. Mereology - everything has a unique place in each of the three physical dimensions; space, time, and scale. To the extent things overlap in scale they can co-exist in the same place and/or time and the lesser in size or complexity is a subset of the greater. General categories have fewer or broader attributes and are universal within the context of the scope they encompass, while individual instances of a category are particulars. They are never fully universal because there are other actually existing things that share no relation to all the specific attributes of another thing.
I am here after playing the Witcher 3. Geralt asked Uma whether he believes that the universals exist as real and distinct entities or only as mental constructs
What is the difference between singular, particular and individual in philosophy? Which one is at the opposite end of universal? You discussed it as particular vs universal and some others discuss it as individual vs universal, I am a bit confused, anyone here to help, much appreciated, thanks
The problem I am having here is when a person says, there are no universals, the idea of a chair is based on other chairs. What makes up a chair exists in the chair itself, not something beyond it. The attributes or characteristics of a chair is found in the chair, and in others, but not something beyond it.
And what if the earth is destroyed, all chairs go out of existence, some new race of intelligence evolves somewhere and one day creates a wooden thing with four legs, a seat and a back rest and sits down on it? Did he just create some wooden blob, or did he just create a combination of matter and form that is an instance of a chair?
It seems at least in the beginning of this video that you are getting at the distinction between the general essence of a given thing and the particular objects which manifest that essence, not the distinction between universals traditionally conceived of as generalized essences (in some way) of particular instantiated properties like redness, squareness, strongness, etc. Although certainly there would be a universal of 'table' (on the Platonic conception) in which all forms of tables partake, I think that you would be better served to use the analogy of some color and then specific shades of that color manifested by certain objects. I don't disagree with you opening statements, but they seem to be muddying the waters more than necessary.
Just recently i read Peter Abelard's explenation of universals and he concluded, that they had no meaning. I guess he is a nominalist. But it went something like this: The universal term "Man" does not help us to understand the proposition "A man sits in this house", lets say that Socrates is sitting in the house. The universal term "Man" identified as rational, mortal animal; he goes on "the very generality of the designation prevents one from understandign the term of just one man in the way for example, that one understands by Socrates, just one unique person. "Man" does not refer directly to you, me or Schwartzenegger nor does it refer to a collection. The last thing Abelard mentions, that it doesn't refer to any collection, kind of puts me off the track. ahha :) Isn't that the precise meaning of the word Universal "That which is of sucj nature as to be predicted of many" I was hpoing you could clear that out for me ? :) And sorry for sloppy english grammar :) hahha
+Kari Thorsson Abelard was more fascinated with the discourse (more specifically the inherent "rightness" of his own rhetoric) than the theory behind the philosophy... in just about every intellectual concern. He was a medieval "sage on the stage". We've all had those professors. Suffice it to say that he is a terrible philosopher in any capacity largely because he didn't think... the talked. And talked.... and talked....
I think the questions are wrong in this video...wouldnt the question, "Do universals exist?" Have a universal iteself(existance itself)? Wouldnt the 2 most basic things we can catergorgize be whether something exists or not? Wouldnt the better question be; "How do we catergorgize existance?" "Or what are the properties of existance?" I think I have an "answer" but like you said in this video, its not obivous just like these questions i made are not. My point is; EVERYTHING has properties. Im still finding it hard to explain my theory because all the properties I "discovered" apply to EVERTYTHING, including my very theory. But I think this only confirms my theory more because I cannot describle each individual property without using the others because they do infact EXIST. Does that make sense? :/ Someone challenge and prove my idea wrong so I can stop thinking about ontology...that shit is too much.
All things exist in a pattern in a mind because things only exist in a mind, as a set of distinguishing attributes and boundary conditions. Some of those things also have an external referent. Beyond the perception of a mind is Actuality - undifferentiated stuff. To a perceiving mind is Reality, a filtered subset of Actuality that is recognized and distinguished according to purpose.
If you were an ant doing ant related activities you think the thought of being stared at without any knowledge of who, where, and how they are analyzing from would be a suggested thought? Same thing as animals in a zoo where they cannot see those that view them in their habitat not knowing who where and how. Such a force can exist if there are signs/symptoms of forced involvement( a form of intervention) of those sources these phenomenon are what people refer to as religious, spiritual, and mental encounters. Basically intervention of how a gorilla eats in the wild will be drastically different than say a zoo not to mention the mentality of both are different where one is free but searches for food as well as learning of other particulars as the other is limited but well fed and learns from those that watch them(universals) leads one to think if intertwining both paths would lead to a more sophisticated gorilla that views both particulars and universals part of their livelihoods. The problem of universals is like how a secret stays a secret until it is told but can still be a secret depending on the context and yet it isn't much of a secret if exposed to masses. An example How to make a bowl of cereal with milk is something everyone knows of(particulars) where as making cereal from scratch to mix with milk is something completely different and may have hidden properties store cereal may not have(universals). So if you want to know the universals its probably best not to know them as if they are a guide since they will turn into particulars if you ever do decide to know about them and who knows if another universal is watching another universal.
We generalize what men consist of so of course, 1) YES. Existence is present, 2) in everyone’s mind based on the fundamental truths established in the thought of the fact that men exist. Considering we’ve broken life and words down to more basic concepts, people’s existence in this world depends on reproduction, and that’s how we know 3) Men AND Women exist. If, for instance, there would exist a hybrid homosapien, then our universal understanding changes entirely. But, even in the case of intersex persons, ones internal organs favor either side of the spectrum. We call this abnormal, because we have simplified what normal is according to the necessities of our species continuance.
At min 0:30 is not adecuate to use the concept to define itself. Something Universal is NOT Universal. An Universal is a generalizing grouping concept, that encloses all individuals within a classification frame.
Also my question is, I don't quite understand why I am obtuse & wrong here, is that when we say we see the particular, in what way does this differ from seeing the universal, i.e., when we see a group chairs and recognize them as a group of chairs? When do we see the table? We would as easily say there is no table, only metal r wood, or atoms or something else?
I'm tempted to give a reply, but only if you're still up for it. Things like tables, chairs, and etc. do. not exist. They are artifacts, universals, however, aren't artifacts. Consider the puzzle of the ship of Theseus, at which point does the ship stop being a ship? The answer is that there is no such thing as a ship, as such, no thing as a table, chair, etc. these things are made up of things that are more fundamental, i.e., the material that makes them up, and they have a natural causal power that artefacts (human objects) inherit. The particular differs from the universal, because of the problem of unity, but some people think that there are only universals (Later Russell), and etc. That's a more complex problem.
if idea is universal, permanent, unchanging then where does it come from? Does it not come the the particular? so, if comes from the particular then it means that there is no universal and particular.
Generally speaking the guys who are also against the scientific process wouldn't agree with you, because taking information from reality in """flawed""" because you can't see all of reality, in my opinion that's a dance around the problem. Still I somewhat agree with you, generally universals are a very good tool to try and apply things such as cultural expectations and law, and trying to take them down can also shake the foundation of those latter two.
Not to mention there is not one set of universals but many, one with each culture or setting, such as a scientific set of universals, or a set of universals our evolutionary ancestors were a aware of, such as the universal of toxins, with the bare minimum known about it being that's they're harmful.
The situation is this: the traditional understanding of the problem is wrong and no-one understands it. Still, there is something helpful in your reading of this dark issue.
But isn't Jan also a universal that describes all the particular instantiations of Jan at sunrise and sunset, when he is running, walking, eating or sleeping? Or he could be understood to be composed of particular atoms or on a biological picturing particular organs? After all, all men might be wiped away just as all instances of Jan will probably be, if Aubrey de Grey fails in his efforts to establish immortality.
I appreciate what you are trying to do with these videos - but it was really a drag sometimes with the way you try to give examples of the arguments presented. You should work on that - because you tend to go on and repeat the same example, which is kinda boring. Thanks for the video though.
There seems to be no example today of a purely capitalist society. Governments can regulate policies and reduce individual control through taxes, for example.
for the love of PETE, this has literally nothing to do with genders, it is about a philosophical conundrum, this is not a video around genders, and what they mean, no-one asked no-one cared.
If you do not state your definitions and comparisons clearly, your audience wont follow you, properly. A comparison must be stablished through a connective conjunction. The difference between Universals and Particulars is that WHILE Universals are comprehensive concepts that group elements based on preestablished similarities, Particulars IN THE OTHER HAND, are individual constructs that take as first consideration, the particular value of such individual, in contrast to the current normative. There you have a comparison properly set.
Communism sounds really good on paper, but unfortunately we have never had concrete evidence of any communist leader who knew what was required of them and separated themselves from well... self-interest. At the core of capitalism is the idea that people possess their own stuff. Privatization of means of production will indubitably help, however.. if we examine our situation today, we come to the conclusion that no one really owns anything completely to and for himself.
Nominalism is the metaphysic whereby universals do not exist. This leads to the meaninglessness and chaos of modernity. Where there is only difference and change and accidentals and imperfections and temporary situations with no real knowledge and no real existence. It is hell.
jan can not be a universal, because he is an abstraction of the concept. that is how i look at it. a universal is an ispiration towards the perfect, and the particulars are...the ones that tried but did not make it. i have just started learning this stuff, so, this is me giving my 2 cents.
I have seen this video hundreds of times. That's how good it is.
5:43 if you understand the basic concepts and just want to understand the deeper things
haha thanks friend from the past!
i was strugglling to understand this in university for a whole semester, but here i am, understood it in 10 minutes just like that! you're a genius! thank you!
Same... 😮
He speaks to the flaw of averages. If in one hand you hold a random series of numbers, and in your other hand you have a single number which is the average value of the numbers in the first hand, you'll find that the average value is rarely present in the first hand. The number which represents the group, is entirely different from the numbers within the group.
The number doesn't represent the group per-se but a relationship between the known instances within the group.
This is ontology and mereology.
Ontology - all things are a set of distinguishing attributes and boundary conditions in a mind according to a purpose. All of them have a physical correlate and some of them have a physical referent.
Mereology - everything has a unique place in each of the three physical dimensions; space, time, and scale. To the extent things overlap in scale they can co-exist in the same place and/or time and the lesser in size or complexity is a subset of the greater. General categories have fewer or broader attributes and are universal within the context of the scope they encompass, while individual instances of a category are particulars. They are never fully universal because there are other actually existing things that share no relation to all the specific attributes of another thing.
I'll keep checking your videos. Thank you for the time to put this together.
I am here after playing the Witcher 3. Geralt asked Uma whether he believes that the universals exist as real and distinct entities or only as mental constructs
All things that exist exist as a mental construct and some of them also have an external referent.
What is the difference between singular, particular and individual in philosophy? Which one is at the opposite end of universal? You discussed it as particular vs universal and some others discuss it as individual vs universal, I am a bit confused, anyone here to help, much appreciated, thanks
Universals are broad categories that require a few attributes for inclusion while particulars are individual instances of a larger set.
Is the problem of universals a question posed by an empiricist/nominalist philosopher like Aristotle?
The problem I am having here is when a person says, there are no universals, the idea of a chair is based on other chairs. What makes up a chair exists in the chair itself, not something beyond it. The attributes or characteristics of a chair is found in the chair, and in others, but not something beyond it.
And what if the earth is destroyed, all chairs go out of existence, some new race of intelligence evolves somewhere and one day creates a wooden thing with four legs, a seat and a back rest and sits down on it? Did he just create some wooden blob, or did he just create a combination of matter and form that is an instance of a chair?
What a thing is, is basically the understanding that is necessary and sufficient for the work the word needs to do.
It seems at least in the beginning of this video that you are getting at the distinction between the general essence of a given thing and the particular objects which manifest that essence, not the distinction between universals traditionally conceived of as generalized essences (in some way) of particular instantiated properties like redness, squareness, strongness, etc. Although certainly there would be a universal of 'table' (on the Platonic conception) in which all forms of tables partake, I think that you would be better served to use the analogy of some color and then specific shades of that color manifested by certain objects. I don't disagree with you opening statements, but they seem to be muddying the waters more than necessary.
Just recently i read Peter Abelard's explenation of universals and he concluded, that they had no meaning. I guess he is a nominalist. But it went something like this: The universal term "Man" does not help us to understand the proposition "A man sits in this house", lets say that Socrates is sitting in the house. The universal term "Man" identified as rational, mortal animal; he goes on "the very generality of the designation prevents one from understandign the term of just one man in the way for example, that one understands by Socrates, just one unique person. "Man" does not refer directly to you, me or Schwartzenegger nor does it refer to a collection.
The last thing Abelard mentions, that it doesn't refer to any collection, kind of puts me off the track. ahha :) Isn't that the precise meaning of the word Universal "That which is of sucj nature as to be predicted of many" I was hpoing you could clear that out for me ? :)
And sorry for sloppy english grammar :) hahha
+Kari Thorsson Abelard was more fascinated with the discourse (more specifically the inherent "rightness" of his own rhetoric) than the theory behind the philosophy... in just about every intellectual concern. He was a medieval "sage on the stage". We've all had those professors. Suffice it to say that he is a terrible philosopher in any capacity largely because he didn't think... the talked. And talked.... and talked....
I think the questions are wrong in this video...wouldnt the question, "Do universals exist?" Have a universal iteself(existance itself)? Wouldnt the 2 most basic things we can catergorgize be whether something exists or not? Wouldnt the better question be; "How do we catergorgize existance?" "Or what are the properties of existance?" I think I have an "answer" but like you said in this video, its not obivous just like these questions i made are not. My point is; EVERYTHING has properties. Im still finding it hard to explain my theory because all the properties I "discovered" apply to EVERTYTHING, including my very theory. But I think this only confirms my theory more because I cannot describle each individual property without using the others because they do infact EXIST. Does that make sense? :/ Someone challenge and prove my idea wrong so I can stop thinking about ontology...that shit is too much.
All things exist in a pattern in a mind because things only exist in a mind, as a set of distinguishing attributes and boundary conditions. Some of those things also have an external referent. Beyond the perception of a mind is Actuality - undifferentiated stuff. To a perceiving mind is Reality, a filtered subset of Actuality that is recognized and distinguished according to purpose.
I think i got the point completely....thank you for this video
Your explanation is very well
Great video. Really helpful thanks
so universals are like plato's forms?
Ya. They suck.
There r no such shit as universals. Lol
1) yes
2) in the mind of God
3) nous
Orthodox Christian?? If so, God Bless
If you were an ant doing ant related activities you think the thought of being stared at without any knowledge of who, where, and how they are analyzing from would be a suggested thought? Same thing as animals in a zoo where they cannot see those that view them in their habitat not knowing who where and how. Such a force can exist if there are signs/symptoms of forced involvement( a form of intervention) of those sources these phenomenon are what people refer to as religious, spiritual, and mental encounters. Basically intervention of how a gorilla eats in the wild will be drastically different than say a zoo not to mention the mentality of both are different where one is free but searches for food as well as learning of other particulars as the other is limited but well fed and learns from those that watch them(universals) leads one to think if intertwining both paths would lead to a more sophisticated gorilla that views both particulars and universals part of their livelihoods. The problem of universals is like how a secret stays a secret until it is told but can still be a secret depending on the context and yet it isn't much of a secret if exposed to masses. An example How to make a bowl of cereal with milk is something everyone knows of(particulars) where as making cereal from scratch to mix with milk is something completely different and may have hidden properties store cereal may not have(universals). So if you want to know the universals its probably best not to know them as if they are a guide since they will turn into particulars if you ever do decide to know about them and who knows if another universal is watching another universal.
We generalize what men consist of so of course, 1) YES. Existence is present, 2) in everyone’s mind based on the fundamental truths established in the thought of the fact that men exist. Considering we’ve broken life and words down to more basic concepts, people’s existence in this world depends on reproduction, and that’s how we know 3) Men AND Women exist. If, for instance, there would exist a hybrid homosapien, then our universal understanding changes entirely. But, even in the case of intersex persons, ones internal organs favor either side of the spectrum. We call this abnormal, because we have simplified what normal is according to the necessities of our species continuance.
At min 0:30 is not adecuate to use the concept to define itself. Something Universal is NOT Universal.
An Universal is a generalizing grouping concept, that encloses all individuals within a classification frame.
Also my question is, I don't quite understand why I am obtuse & wrong here, is that when we say we see the particular, in what way does this differ from seeing the universal, i.e., when we see a group chairs and recognize them as a group of chairs? When do we see the table? We would as easily say there is no table, only metal r wood, or atoms or something else?
I'm tempted to give a reply, but only if you're still up for it. Things like tables, chairs, and etc. do. not exist. They are artifacts, universals, however, aren't artifacts. Consider the puzzle of the ship of Theseus, at which point does the ship stop being a ship? The answer is that there is no such thing as a ship, as such, no thing as a table, chair, etc. these things are made up of things that are more fundamental, i.e., the material that makes them up, and they have a natural causal power that artefacts (human objects) inherit. The particular differs from the universal, because of the problem of unity, but some people think that there are only universals (Later Russell), and etc. That's a more complex problem.
if idea is universal, permanent, unchanging then where does it come from? Does it not come the the particular? so, if comes from the particular then it means that there is no universal and particular.
Generally speaking the guys who are also against the scientific process wouldn't agree with you, because taking information from reality in """flawed""" because you can't see all of reality, in my opinion that's a dance around the problem. Still I somewhat agree with you, generally universals are a very good tool to try and apply things such as cultural expectations and law, and trying to take them down can also shake the foundation of those latter two.
Not to mention there is not one set of universals but many, one with each culture or setting, such as a scientific set of universals, or a set of universals our evolutionary ancestors were a aware of, such as the universal of toxins, with the bare minimum known about it being that's they're harmful.
Thank you from 2022
1:05 da vinci is rolling in his grave
The Vitruvian Man was also a self portrait as well of da vinci
So good
The situation is this: the traditional understanding of the problem is wrong and no-one understands it. Still, there is something helpful in your reading of this dark issue.
Thank you so much!!!!!
Universals don’t match the particulars. And yet they are still useful to create categories that most particulars follow.
But isn't Jan also a universal that describes all the particular instantiations of Jan at sunrise and sunset, when he is running, walking, eating or sleeping? Or he could be understood to be composed of particular atoms or on a biological picturing particular organs?
After all, all men might be wiped away just as all instances of Jan will probably be, if Aubrey de Grey fails in his efforts to establish immortality.
I mean I am Jan and I am not the same to this other Jan.
Essence vs manifestation
Universals are particulars, with a certain trait that makes them behave similarly.
yes there's no universals, but there are similar "particulars"
Look into Prototype Theory as it basically solves this.
Philosophy isn't fact bruhhhhhh
Science is built on philosophy. You saying 1+1=2 assumes certain philosophical position to be a fact
With the theory of evolution we now know that man is not an eternal abstract concept, but rather advances.
Evolution is BS tho
I appreciate what you are trying to do with these videos - but it was really a drag sometimes with the way you try to give examples of the arguments presented. You should work on that - because you tend to go on and repeat the same example, which is kinda boring. Thanks for the video though.
great thnx
There seems to be no example today of a purely capitalist society. Governments can regulate policies and reduce individual control through taxes, for example.
for the love of PETE, this has literally nothing to do with genders, it is about a philosophical conundrum, this is not a video around genders, and what they mean, no-one asked no-one cared.
At min 2:59 There is one man? Enough driven falacies for me. Good luck.
Thank you sooo much, this explained it incredibly well!
If you do not state your definitions and comparisons clearly, your audience wont follow you, properly.
A comparison must be stablished through a connective conjunction.
The difference between Universals and Particulars is that WHILE Universals are comprehensive concepts that group elements based on preestablished similarities, Particulars IN THE OTHER HAND, are individual constructs that take as first consideration, the particular value of such individual, in contrast to the current normative.
There you have a comparison properly set.
Communism sounds really good on paper, but unfortunately we have never had concrete evidence of any communist leader who knew what was required of them and separated themselves from well... self-interest.
At the core of capitalism is the idea that people possess their own stuff. Privatization of means of production will indubitably help, however.. if we examine our situation today, we come to the conclusion that no one really owns anything completely to and for himself.
Nominalism is the metaphysic whereby universals do not exist. This leads to the meaninglessness and chaos of modernity. Where there is only difference and change and accidentals and imperfections and temporary situations with no real knowledge and no real existence. It is hell.
that might be true. but unfortunately, both of them are ideals.
jan can not be a universal, because he is an abstraction of the concept. that is how i look at it. a universal is an ispiration towards the perfect, and the particulars are...the ones that tried but did not make it. i have just started learning this stuff, so, this is me giving my 2 cents.
2 cents?