BRYAN PIEL AB-PHILO IV BRO.

DARYLL LOUIS CAMARGO

REACTION PAPER 6 PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE

THE UNIVERSALS: REAL OR IRREAL?

When I read the assigned readings, all I can say is that the Western philosophy
have gone too far. As I go further in my readings I discover that that discussions in
every chapter become more and more intellectually demanding. The assigned chapter
for this week talks about universal. Accordingly, universals, in philosophy used in a
certain type of metaphysical explanation of what it is for things to share a feature,
attribute, or quality or to fall under the same type or a natural kind.
When we question the existence of the universals whether real or irreal, we will
be led to the two opposing philosophical concepts: realism and nominalism. Realism
holds that the universals are literally true. The universals like humanity, goodness,
beauty, blue are true for the realist. Nominalism holds different view. It rejects universals
and it claims that there is no need to posit an extra, rather strange entity. Which of
which holds the truth? The realist or the nominalist? Are universals real or irreal?
Before answering that questions let’s try to look at the medieval thinkers’ view on
universals. According to the readings, the problem of universals arose as a result of the
problem of the relationship between the terms and concepts used by logic and reality.
Accordingly, there were many philosophers who argued that it was only the particulars
that really existed and that the rest which were universals were claimed to be
meaningless and dull. Let’s try to know the philosophical view and the philosophical
contribution of the medieval thinkers with regards to the universals. First is Porphyry.
He laid a foundation for the realist and nominalist debate. Second is Boethius. Boethius
explained universal as general structure from which shares were received not
intrinsically but metaphysically. He also said that universals did not exist as substance
and that they did not have any existence outside the mind. Although they have mental
existence, they have to depend on an external reality. Third is Abelard. He proposed
that the starting point of the study on universals should be the investigations of the
words the signify concepts. Abelard also emphasized that it was only the particulars that
existed as an outcome of mental competence. Last is William of Ockham. He made a
systematic investigation of the problem of universals. In his work called Sum of Logic,
he discussed terms, propositions and arguments. William examined the concept of
universals in two ways. The first one is a natural universality peculiar to the concept of
mind and soul. The other is conventional universality peculiar to words. He concluded
that universals are nothing more than terms in propositions, tools for parsimony and
device used in scientific reasoning.
 Knowing their philosophical view, I also concluded that many of them advocated
nominalism. Many held that universals are not true. Universals for them are irreal. For
me, their conviction is only a result of their speculation. I have a strong conviction that
there are still a lot of unknown ideas regarding the universals. Notwithstanding, I
commend the ideas of the medieval thinkers on universals. Indeed they offered to us a
vast and substantial knowledge regarding universals. We cannot really conclude
whether universals are irreal o real. Hence, it is a challenge for all of us to ask more and
philosophize more on universals hoping that we can reach to a valid and rational
concepts- a concept that cannot anymore be refuted. Let’s continue to philosophize!