Talk:Universal (metaphysics)

Could we move this to universal (metaphysics), please? I guess I should ask for sysop responsibilities. :-) --Larry Sanger


 * All logged-in users can move pages now - not just admins. Are there other items that could be encyclopedia articles that are also called "universal"? In this case there proabably are so a parenthical title should be in order. --mav

Inadvisable and improper merge
JA: I was nonplussed to find that my attempt to link another article to a standard topic in philosophy has been hijacked by a neologistic, modernistic, POV name change. That will not do. Non-plus even more, the merge was not duly discussed according to standard procedures, so I have reverted it. Jon Awbrey 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed this old section, because I'm not sure what the unsigned editor was trying to say
The subjects of (natural) science and metaphysics are overlapping domains, yes.

Is there any other point you're trying to make?

CircularReason (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead should include word "property"
For some reason, the lead word has "namely characteristics or qualities" when "properties" is probably a better term.

I am thinking of added in "property" in addition to or instead of "characteristic", as per the Van Inwagon..

"Universals, if they indeed exist, are, in the first instance, properties or qualities or attributes (i.e., “ductility” or “whiteness”) that are supposedly universally “present in” the members of classes of things and relations (i.e., “being to the north of”) that are supposedly universally present in the members of classes of sequences of things" Van Inwagon, "Metaphysics"

JP Moreland uses the same terminology: "Chapter 1 describe three main schools of thought regarding the ontological status of properties (with subgroups within each school)" Moreland, "Universals"

CircularReason (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)