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.
Can I suggest re-phrasing this as:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: John Sowa
Distinction: D1 (anyone have a good name?)
Options:
X: something that corresponds to a predicate that may
be applied to a class of zero or more physical entities
Y: something that corresponds to a predicate that applies to only one entity
Proposed name for D1-X: "universal"
Proposed name for D1-Y: "astract particular"
----
Problem:
* X and Y are not disjoint, since one is included in 'zero or more'.
> Chris Menzel says:
> 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.)
I found it hard to convert this into an explicit easy to understand
distinction. Here is my best shot:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Chris Menzel
Distinction: D2 (anyone have a good name?)
Options:
X: something that is an abstract exemplifiable thing or is built up from
one or more abstract exemplifiable things
Y: something that is not an exemplifiable thing, nor is it built up from
exemplifiable things
Proposed name for D2-X: "astract exemplifiable thing"
Proposed name for D2-Y: "astract particular"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One problem with this is there is no saying what an
"abstract exemplifiable thing" is. I'm not entirely sure, myself.
I hope this re-presentation makes it easier to compare proposed distinctions.
Mike
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:17:41 -0500
> From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu>
> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
> X-Listname: standard-upper-ontology
> X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>
> 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
>