Universality (philosophy)
For others meanings of universal or universality, see universal (disambiguation) page.
Universality is opposed to
relativism in
philosophy.
Truth may be said to be universal, as well as
rights, for example in
natural rights or in the 1789
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, heavily influenced by the philosophy of the
Enlightenment and its conception of a
human nature. The 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is inspired by the same principles. A
proposition is said to have
universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a
contradiction. Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as
universalizable.
Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as
eternal or as
absolute. The
relativist conception denies the existence of universal truths - although they are, of course, grades of relativism: most relativists deny the existence of universal moral values, which make them
moral relativists, but few deny the existence of universal truths when
mathematics are concerned. In other words, since truth has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them. A classic argument against extreme forms of relativism rely on the
relativist fallacy: claiming that "all truths are relative" is, in itself, a universal proposition, since it asserts something about a
totality. Thus, this extreme form of relativism is seen as self refuting (however, relativists often argue that, as
sceptics, they have never made such universal assertion).
A
universal proposition is one that affirms a
property of all the members of a
set. For instance, the proposition that all
dogs are
mortal and the proposition that all
cows can fly are universal propositions, the former (assumedly) true and the latter false. A universal proposition is logically equivalent to the negation of an
existential proposition. Thus, claiming that
all cows can fly is equivalent to denying that
there is a cow that cannot fly.
It may be noted, along the lines of
Humean causal scepticism, that the only universal propositions that must be true are those that exist
a priori, drawn from definitions (i.e. "All dogs are mammals"). Universal propositions that are drawn
a posteriori, from one's experience of the world (i.e. "All dogs are born with four legs"), can never be confirmed as true, simply supported to be true (though such propositions are
falsifiable).
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.
The term
universality also refers to the
medieval concept of an absolute, all-encompassing morality that justified a universal secular rule by one all-powerful
Holy Roman Emperor, and also justified as universal the religious rule by one all-powerful all-encompassing (hence the term
catholic) church. In the 17th century, the doctrine of universality gave way to the doctrine of
raison d'état or
national interest. Universality is comparable, but not equivalent, to the concept of the
Mandate of Heaven in Chinese history.
Absolutism contends that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true forsome cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. These statementsare called absolute truths. A common reaction by those who newly criticizeabsolutism is the absolute truth statement:
Absolute truths do not exist.The statement, 'Absolute truths do not exist.', reveals the characteristic of absolute truth. Absolute truth does not apply to reality, existence, belief, or to human intelligence. In the logic of dichotomy of true-not true, application is without respect to what is absolutely true. Certainly, absolute truth does not define material existence, but supports material existence, position, and state of being. Absolute truth is as applicable to 'not true' as it is to 'true'. The double negative reveals this monistic status of absolute truth. The non-existence of absolute truth would, if true, be as true as the existence of absolute truth in an absolute sense. To postulate the non-existence of truth, however, is to violate the most fundamental capacity of mind. It is as though a snake could swallow itself by starting at the tail. Therein lies the value of absolute truth for thought. Violation of truth value in an absolute sense, validates the truth value of existence versus non-existence. Some say, "If I see it I believe it." Others say, "I believe it if I know it." If the sense of knowing is little better than the sense of sight, little can be made of the analogy. The acuity of the sense of absolute truth may not be good enough for most to clearly distinguish the difference between what is true and truth itself.
One could ask, 'Is it true that truth exists?' One can also ask, 'Is it true that truth does not exist?' The first can be affirmed by mind, while the latter cannot be affirmed without a gross distortion of sense. If truth does not exist, it would certainly be true that truth does not exist. That is the quality of absolute truth. If the negation were true, one could not ask the question and expect a true answer. Absolute truth is the essence of thought and distinguishes the capacity of the sapient being.
In action form, absolute truth most closely represents verity. This form can be likened to the action usage of
metaphysical truth, but not itsstate usage (which represent metaphysical truths in state form). Absolutetruth in action form is considered by many to be metaphysical only, andtherefore the same as the action usage of metaphysical truth. Some believethe outcome of absolute truth (verity) can be metaphysical truths, physicaltruths or both, but by definition not any form of a
lie.
A particularly confusing absolute truth in state form (but good for example) is:
Absolute truth cannot be a lie.Some interpret this to mean:
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.But that refers specifically to the action form of absolute truth. Othersinterpret it as:
Absolute truth statements cannot be lies.But that refers specifically to the state form of absolute truth. The originalstatement can be interpreted as either the state or action form. In the stateform the statement is not true, but in the action form it is true. Either waythe statement is an absolute truth in state form.
A potential example of absolute truth in action form is:
The words you are reading exist because of absolute truths in action form supporting their ability to exist.Attentive readers will recognize the previous statement as an absolute truthin state form describing absolute truth in action form. Whether or not thestatement is true is left as an exercise for the reader.
An interesting paradox arises when someone refutes the existence of any absolute truths. Their statement might be something along the lines of:
There are no absolute truths.If this statement were true, it would imply that it is an absolute truth itself. And if this statement is an absolute truth, it would contradict its original statement and mean that the statement is in fact false. Therefore it is impossible to prove that there are absolutely no absolute truths. However, this doesn't necessarily imply that they exist.
A more proper way of stating it would be to say that "Relative truth is correct". Although this seems to be an absolute statement, it is in fact not, because it does not exclude that "Absolute truth is also correct". To a relativist, whose culture holds this as a tenet; relativism is indeed correct. But a relativist can also allow that to one raised in a culture of absolutism, it would be incorrect. In other words, the relativist is saying "From my perspective, relativism is true, whereas from a different perspective, relativism may be false."
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." -
Steven Robiner*
Kant's
categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."
*1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights*
Objectivity*
Truth*
Relativism*
Universalism
