Universality (philosophy)
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 17:02, 26 June 2007 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" | ||
| + | | style="text-align: left;" | | ||
| + | "Suppose [[everyman|everyone]] had a box with something in it: we call it a "[[beetle]]". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at ''his'' beetle. Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box." --[[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], ''[[Philosophical Investigations]]'' | ||
| + | <hr> | ||
| + | "To say of what is, that it is not, or of what is not, that it is, is false; while to say of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is true." - [[Aristotle]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |} | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | '''Universality''' is the quality ascribed to that which is universal, and considered then as in existence everywhere, throughout the Universe. In philosophy, [[universalism]] is a doctrine or school in which it is claimed that universal facts can be discovered and which is understood then as being in opposition to [[relativism]]. This sense of ''universal'' is more restricted, in that it refers to what is universal amongst [[human]]s. [[Rights]], for example in [[natural rights]], or in the 1789 [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]], for those heavily influenced by the philosophy of the [[Enlightenment]] and its conception of a [[human nature]], could be considered as universal. The 1948 [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] is inspired by such principles. | + | In philosophy, '''universalism''' is a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to [[relativism]]. In certain religions, '''universality''' is the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe. This article also discusses [[Kantian]] and [[Platonist]] notions of "universal", which are considered by many to be separate notions. |
| + | |||
| + | ==Universality in ethics== | ||
| + | When used in the context of ethics, the meaning of ''universal'' ''{from Gk. katholikos)'' refers to that which is true for "all similarly situated individuals." [[Rights]], for example in [[natural rights]], or in the 1789 [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]], for those heavily influenced by the philosophy of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and its conception of a [[human nature]], could be considered as universal. The 1948 [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] is inspired by such principles. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Universality in logic== | ||
| + | In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, 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 [[universalizability|universalizable]]. [[Truth]] is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as [[eternity|eternal]] or as absolute. The [[relativism|relativist conception]] denies the existence of some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones (through [[moral relativism]]). [[Mathematics]] is a field in which those truths discovered, in relation to the field of mathematics, are typically considered of universal scope. Though usage of the word ''truth'' has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them. This is not to say that universality is limited to mathematics, for there exists a large number of people who apply the standard to philosophy, theology and beyond. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Universality in metaphysics== | ||
| + | In [[metaphysics]], a '''universal''' is a [[type (metaphysics)|type]], a [[property (metaphysics)|property]], or a [[relation (metaphysics)|relation]]. The noun ''universal'' contrasts with ''[[individual]]'', while the adjective ''universal'' contrasts with ''[[particular]]'' or sometimes with ''[[concrete (philosophy)|concrete]]''. The latter meaning, however, may be confusing since [[G.W.F. Hegel|Hegelian]] and neo-Hegelian (e.g. [[British idealism|British idealist]]) philosophies speak of ''[[concrete universal]]s''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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'') ''[[Substance theory#Inherence relation|inheres]]'' a particular object (a specific dog, red thing, or object between other things). | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Platonic realism]] holds universals to be the [[referent]]s of general terms, i.e. the ''[[abstraction|abstract]]'', nonphysical entities to which words like "doghood", "redness", and "betweenness" refer. By contrast, particulars are the referents 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 [[ontology|ontological]] theory. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most ontological frameworks do not consider [[class (philosophy)|classes]] to be universals, although some prominent philosophers, such as John Bigelow, do. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Natural law]] | ||
| + | *[[Moral universalism]] | ||
| + | * [[Universalizability]] | ||
| - | In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, 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 [[universalizability|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 [[relativism|relativist conception]] denies the existence of universal truths (there being grades of relativism), though relativists generally deny the existence of universal moral values, (thus [[moral relativism|moral relativists]]). [[Mathematics]] is a field in which those truths discovered, in relation to the field of mathematics, are considerered of universal scope. Usage of the word ''truth'' has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them. | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
"Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box." --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations "To say of what is, that it is not, or of what is not, that it is, is false; while to say of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is true." - Aristotle |
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
In philosophy, universalism is a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism. In certain religions, universality is the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe. This article also discusses Kantian and Platonist notions of "universal", which are considered by many to be separate notions.
Contents |
Universality in ethics
When used in the context of ethics, the meaning of universal {from Gk. katholikos) refers to that which is true for "all similarly situated individuals." Rights, for example in natural rights, or in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, for those heavily influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment and its conception of a human nature, could be considered as universal. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is inspired by such principles.
Universality in logic
In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, 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 some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones (through moral relativism). Mathematics is a field in which those truths discovered, in relation to the field of mathematics, are typically considered of universal scope. Though usage of the word truth has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them. This is not to say that universality is limited to mathematics, for there exists a large number of people who apply the standard to philosophy, theology and beyond.
Universality in 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 referents 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, such as John Bigelow, do.
See also
