The Problem of Universals: Failed Attempts and Ayn Rands Solution
Gary Hall, 10/7/1996 1Hr 22min + Q&A
The goal of the lecture is to give a broad overview of the most crucial problem in philosophy: the problem of universals Universals means, concepts The problem is very abstract and can be technical [thats an understatement] Consider the two sets of objects [is holding three balls and three triangles] All three balls are grouped into a class togetherball As are the triangles Notice that your mind does not individualize each concrete but generalizes and names them all one thingball. Or triangle. The problem is, the world is filled with individual concrete things. Whats given is individual particulars The problem is, where is the one in the many, to quote the Greeks Ive seen many men but Ive never seen man The three balls look alike but there are a great many differences among them There is a difference in color and diameter between the golf and tennis ball Every individual thing looks different, theres nothing identical in how they look Yet we treat everything as an instance of a concept Ex: each ball is an instance of the concept ball Ex: To say that you love your job and your spouse are two different instances of something which have been grouped under the concept love Why does this problem matter? All progress is the product of mans ability to conceptualize A theory of concepts lies under your understanding of every idea you hold From physics to sex Ex: The field of political philosophy Todays countless and contradictory uses of the concept rights The animal rights movement argues that animals have rights because a rat and pig and dog and boy all are part of the same concept Intrinsic view of concepts Came first in the history of philosophy Ex: You shouldnt lie even to a murderer because, after all, god says lying is wrong Holds that concepts or universals exist apart from your mind Concept is intrinsic in realityits out there somewhere Concepts are out there, and there are two ideas of what out there means Plato and Religious views place the concept in a supernatural dimension World of forms, transcendent, etc Aristotle views universals as in things Your mind is like a ball of wax and the concept imprints itself on your mindsomehow Thus the two essentials of the intrinsic view are: Concepts exist independent of your mind Your mind is passive The Problem of Universals: Failed Attempts and Ayn Rands Solution Gary Hall, 10/7/1996 1Hr 22min + Q&A
Platonic intrinsicism The first philosopher in history to explain comprehensively the problem of universals His views found in three works: Phaedo, The Republic, and Parmenides He is other worldly- the world of forms Triangle, justice, etc exist in this other dimension Socrates would hear an individual call an act a virtue He would respond, how wonderful that you know the essence of virtue. What is it? Person responds with an example He was not looking for examples but rather the one in the many He was doing the same thing for virtue that we did for ball The Sophists tried to undercut concepts by relying on two premises Reality is constant flux and changereality by its nature forbids absolutes Perception is relativea building in the distance does not look the same to a man standing next to it as it does a man standing far away Platos heart was in the right place as he was attempting to prove that knowledge was objective in refutation of the Sophists Claimed that what is common is that they all have a relationship to the universal that exists in the world of forms When we use concepts we refer to universals that exist in the supernatural dimension Ex: Love Picks out a transcendent ideal apart from your life and your emotions Leads to the idea that love and sex are mortal enemies Aristotelian intrinsicism Called this worldly intrinsicism Concepts are out there, but theyre in individual things, in concrete entities This theory is taken more seriously than Platos Consciousness has to be passive A universal is a characteristic Logically dependent upon the entity There is no such thing as a ball without the concept ball Once you argue that a concept is in something, you have to ask how the concept gets into your consciousness The answer is, somehow Intuition A concept is like perception, just happens Subjective view of conceptsnominalism Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less. Feelings are the masters, concepts are the slaves A concept is whatever someone wants it to be The Problem of Universals: Failed Attempts and Ayn Rands Solution Gary Hall, 10/7/1996 1Hr 22min + Q&A
Although we naturally speak of an object of a concept, its clear that such an object does not exist. There is no reason to suppose that there is an entity belonging to the concept There are no clean breaks between entities There is no triangleness in triangle The characteristics of each thing is different than every other one The tennis ball is different in every particular from the golf ball You could argue from intrinsicist viewpoint There is something in the object that remains identical and the same when you remove everything thats different [Sounds like John Lockes context omission] However, if you remove each trait that is not difficult, you end up with nothing The one, of the one in the many, is inside your mind There are images and words in your mind that you associate with the individual concrete things A picture or a word is that which is the same to a collection of entities Ex of problem: Create in your mind the image of a one thousand sided figure Cant do it. [Crow epistemologyrecognition that mans consciousness has identity] What happens when one persons image is different than another persons image Each word is one specific perceptual concrete The one in the many, in this case, is the name (or the word) But no written word (or spoken word) is exactly the same as another written (spoken) word If you want to figure out the meaning of a word right, you need to figure out how its used Rands solution to the problem of universals: Perception (direct evidence of senses) is the base of mans knowledge Concepts are means of classifying and organizing knowledge Allow you to discover knowledge of not just one tree, but all trees Concepts are nothing more than mental space savers There is a limit to what you can discriminate and retain at any one time Forming a concept requires two processes Differentiation- the process of grasping differences Integration- the blending of elements into an inseparable whole Ex: suppose you see three entities: two balls and a block The similarity between the two balls becomes apparent by comparing them to the block The big difference between the blocks and balls pushes to the foreground the resemblance between the two balls When we form a concept we are forming a human view on reality but it is not subjective We classify according to the attributes which you observe in reality The power to do this is the power to observe the similarity while dropping the mathematical measurement of the similarity The primary purpose of a word is identification and understanding The heart of her view is the connection between measurement and concept formation In measurement, you use an instance of the trait being measure The Problem of Universals: Failed Attempts and Ayn Rands Solution Gary Hall, 10/7/1996 1Hr 22min + Q&A
Ex: take a foot. Youre relating all instances of length to that specific length Reduces the number of units: 5280 feet is condensed into one unit, a mile Makes possible knowledge beyond what is directly perceived When we form a concept the process is retaining the similarity between existents but ignoring the measurement Every particular thing classified under one concept is commensurable They can all be related mathematically to the same standard The only difference is the amount Ex: All individual balls can be compared to the tennis ball They only differ in the quantity of their circumference, or the height they can bounce, etc Some but any principle In measurement omission two or more things have the same common trait but to a greater or lesser degree Your mind simply ignores the greater or lesser degree The thorny problem is figuring out what is the same Differences are obvious- you just look Similarity is two things: Partial identity Partial difference It is the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic but in the varying degree Thus differences are crucial to identifying similarities [you need a third foil to figure out that two concretes are similar] The commensurable characteristic is the CCD- conceptual common denominator You cannot differentiate balls from musical notes, but you can differentiate among balls Namely, the shape of the balls I have seen many men but not man To what precisely do we refer when we call three individual men, men We mean that these three entities contain the same distinguishing characteristic that differentiate them from other entitiesthe rational faculty The faculty may exist in any quantity but must exist in some quantity This is the same basic principle of algebraic symbols Concepts are to individual things as algebraic symbols are to numbers Question: Im in law school and concepts are mutilated. Every day Im confronted by this problem how should I respond? If your professor is going to penalize you, its better to stay quiet Question: Is there more than one way for our perceptual data to be organized? All concepts have to be made along a commensurable CCD There is optionality in the order of conceptualization but the options are limited by commensurability The Problem of Universals: Failed Attempts and Ayn Rands Solution Gary Hall, 10/7/1996 1Hr 22min + Q&A
Question: What happens where there is no clear difference as in colors There is a clean distinction between yellow and black But on the issue of borderline caseslike red and orange and red orange Or Venus flytrapanimal or plant? How do you know that this is a borderline case without reference to the extreme? How do you know this is a mix of plant and animal without knowing the characteristics of plants and animals Fallacy of stolen concept: Taking a higher level concept and uses it to invalidate the lower level concepts which gave rise to the higher level concepts