|Universals: universals are expressions for what objects may have in common, e.g. a certain color. Examples for universals are redness, roundness, difference, value. The ontological status of universals as something independent of thought - that is, their existence - is controversial. Nevertheless it is undisputed that we form terms for generalization and successfully use them. See also general terms, general, generalization, ontology, existence, conceptual realism, realism, ideas, participation, sortals, conceptualism, nominalism._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Wittgenstein/Cavell: both deny, contrary to most other philosophers, that conformity with criteria (a sign of intelligible speech) can be justified by reference to universals.
Universals/Cavell: my knowledge of the application cannot go beyond the explanation of the respective individual case! Thus, no universal or definition can represent my knowledge as it were.
A source of the (erroneous) stimulus of universals lies in the different function of subject and predicate._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
Die Unheimlichkeit des Gewöhnlichen Frankfurt 2002