The Problem of Universals
Realist claim that universals are “real” and are know to be in many forms. Two major forms are Platonic realism and Aristotelian realism, named after theology from famous philosophers.in platonic realism, its believed that universals are real entities and they exist independent of particulars, while in Aristotelian realism, its viewed as real entities, however their existence depends on the particulars that represent them.
Nominalists don’t believe in universal and that only individuals or particulars exist, as entities or beings. They argue that entities only share a name and not a real quality in common. Nominalism also has several form, in which Resemblance nominalism, conceptualism, and trope nominalism are major forms of it.
Idealists believe that universals are not real, but are ideas in the mind of rational beings, such as us. They don’t reject universals as “arbitrary names,” but they treat them as fundamental categories of “pure reason.” Idealist believes universals, to be tied to rationality of the subject making the judgment. For instance, if a person were to judge that two desks are flat they aren’t noticing a “mind-independent” thing that is in both objects, nor are they simply applying a name to both, but more like they partially constitute the very concept of the table by supplying it with the concept of latitude, which already exists as an idea in their rational mind.
William of Ockham argued strongly that universals are a product of abstract human thought. He believed that universals are just words or names that only exist in the mind and have no real place in the external world. The only universal entities it makes sense to talk about are universal concepts, and derivative on them, universal terms in spoken and written language. It is stated that these “universal” concepts are singular entities like all others: they are “universal” only in the sense...