Re: SUO: Abstractions, universals, and signs
John Sowa wrote:
> Suggested distinction: A universal corresponds to a predicate that may
> be applied to a class of zero or more physical entities. An abstract
> particular corresponds to a predicate that applies to only one entity.
John, by your definition, every abstract particular is a universal,
since if a predicate applies to only one entity, it also applies to a
*class* of one entity. Is that your intention? I should think you'd
want these notions to be disjoint.
In my experience, the term "abstract particular" applies not to
exemplifiable things, but to abstract *non*-exemplifiable things, e.g.,
the equator, numbers, sets, etc. So perhaps the distinction with some
bite here is the one between abstract exemplifiable things (and things
"built up" logically from them, which may not be exemplifiable like the
property _square circle_) and abstract particulars which neither are,
nor are "built up" logically from, exemplifiable things. (Of course,
the notion of something being "built up" logically from other things
would have to be clarified.)
-chris
--
Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764