Question 2

2 views of realism
platonic universals were real, they were particulars
plato somewhere out there there is a chair there are particulars third man argument
Aristotle
Predicated
Predicated of many
Something that makes every man a man nose a nose, etc
Universal red can be predicated of it
Porphyry
ntor to !ategories
" #uestions
do universal e$ist or in the mind% &eal or ideas% 'asic schism between realists and
idealists substances or in the mind alone
are they corporeal or incorporeal
are they separate of the substance perceived in the sense or
Aristotle( you cannot have a universal without a particular
Page ) in porphyry
realists and nominalists
'oethius ( isogoge translates into latin forefront of medieval philosophy
porphyry doesn*t talk about
'oethius
)+ all things that e$ist e$ist as one
2+ a universal e$ists in many therefore universals do not e$ist
can e$ist as an idea
corresponding
corr+ ,o something in reality
non(corresponding
do not relate
if it*s a non(corresponding, it is empty, void, meaningless
abstractionist reply---
a mathematician is able to abstract the idea of a line even thought there is no real line
so not void because abstracted from reality
what ou mind does when we look at reality is that we abstract the form in the same way
that a mathematician will abstract for a line
analogy of the mathematician focus there e$ists as a noncorresponding idea
universal does not e$ist in reality
moderate realism 'oethius e$ist but not in a corporeal sense
Abelard
,eacher was e$treme realist universals e$isted to such an e$tent to the same humanness,
we have the e$act same thing
'rownie the ass argument
Socrates and brownie the ass are both animals
&ational and nonrational
'oth are traits of animality so that*s a contradiction
Page ")
.ot substances don*t e$ist as things
,his is our nominalist
,otally linguistic
/ords
0perate as sub1ects in a sub1ect predicate sentence
2$treme nominalist and
roscelin
.ominalist mere words, but disagreed because he thinks there is a correspondance
between words and reality
&eason why words are applied to reality
!ause of imposition we describe and name reality, not meaningless
3escribes a status in our being, not the universal itself
Status doesn*t e$ist, not all partake in
Signification happens simultaneously
2$planation for why words have meaning why
Perception is when we encounter particulars the intellective part is the thought that
arises when we hear the word man
,ower or ta1 mahal whiteness, dome #uality, but when someone says ,a1 mahal that*s
signification
/hen someone says man to you it doesn*t really e$ist
'ut there is a status that e$ists