Universal (metaphysics)
In
metaphysics, a
universal is a
type, a
property, or a
relation. The noun
universal contrasts with
individual, while the adjective
universal contrasts with
particular or sometimes with
concrete. The latter meaning, however, may be confusing since
Hegelian and neo-Hegelian (e.g.
British idealist) philosophies speak of
concrete universals.
A universal may have instances, known as its
particulars. For example, the type
dog (or
doghood) is a universal, as are the property
red (or
redness) and the relation
betweenness (or
being between). Any particular dog, red thing, or object that is between other things is not a universal, however, but is an
instance of a universal. That is, a universal type (
doghood), property (
redness), or relation (
betweenness)
inheres a particular object (a specific dog, red thing, or object between other things).
Platonic realism holds universals to be the
referents of general terms, i.e. the
abstract, nonphysical entities to which words like "doghood", "redness", and "betweenness" refer. By contrast, particulars are the referrents of proper names, like "Fido", or of definite descriptions that identify single objects, like the phrase, "that apple on the table". By contrast, other metaphysical theories merely use the terminology of universals to describe physical entities.
The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics concerning the nature of universals, or whether they exist. Part of the problem involves the implications of language use and the complexity of relating language to
ontological theory.
Most ontological frameworks do not consider
classes to be universals, although some prominent philosophers do, such as John Bigelow.
*
Hypostatic abstraction*
Hypostatic object*
Philosophy of mathematics*
Platonic realism*
Prescisive abstraction
