David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Universals are a class of mind independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called “particulars”), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. Individuals are said to be similar in virtue of sharing universals. An apple and a ruby are both red, for example, and their common redness results from sharing a universal. If they are both red at the same time, the universal, red, must be in two places at once. This makes universals quite different from individuals, and controversial.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Charles Landesman (1971). The Problem of Universals. New York,Basic Books.
Paweł Rojek (2008). Three Trope Theories. Axiomathes 18 (3):359-377.
Michael J. Loux (ed.) (1970/1976). Universals and Particulars: Readings in Ontology. University of Notre Dame Press.
Thomas Bittner, Maureen Donnelly & Barry Smith (2004). Individuals, Universals, Collections: On the Foundational Relations of Ontology. In Achille Varzi & Laure Vieu (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of the Third International Conference, 37–48. IOS Press 37–48..
Thomas Bittner, Maureen Donnelly & Barry Smith (2004). Individuals, Universals, Collections: On the Foundational Relations of Ontology. In Achille Varzi Laure Vieu (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of the Third International Conference. IOS Press 37–48.
Fraser MacBride (1999). Could Armstrong Have Been a Universal? Mind 108 (431):471-501.
Fraser MacBride (2005). The Particular–Universal Distinction: A Dogma of Metaphysics? Mind 114 (455):565-614.
John Bolender (2006). Nomic Universals and Particular Causal Relations: Which Are Basic and Which Are Derived? Philosophia 34 (4):405-410.
Larry Lee Blackman (1983). Russell on the Relations of Universals and Particulars. Philosophy Research Archives 9:265-278.
Ingvar Johansson (2009). Proof of the Existence of Universals—and Roman Ingarden's Ontology. Metaphysica 10 (1):65-87.
Theodore Sider (2006). Bare Particulars. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):387–397.
Joan Pagès (2002). Structural Universals and Formal Relations. Synthese 131 (2):215 - 221.
Timothy O'Connor & Jonathan D. Jacobs (2003). Emergent Individuals. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (213):540-555.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads32 ( #100,267 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?