Russell On Platonic Universals Essays - Ontology, Universal

Russell On Platonic Universals The consideration of Platonic universals consequently rouses controversy among philosophers. Thinkers like Bertrand Russell and Thomas Hobbes contribute reflective explanations for the undeniable usage of question-begging ideas in language and thought. While the deliberation of Platonic universals might seem to be fruitless and, at best, obscure to the layperson, it does function as a critical foundation for metaphysics and epistemology. Whether a philosopher agrees or disagrees with the idea of Platonic universals is irrelevant to the certain truth that he or she must form some opinion of them preceding most any philosophic endeavor. To attempt to summarize Plato's theory of universals in a paragraph would do it a great injustice but a simple, working definition of the theory is necessary to move any further. Plato's theory can be condensed as follows: A universal (or form) is an independently existing, nonspatial, nontemporal "something" known only through thought and that cannot be known through the senses; independently existing objects of thought; that which makes a particular thing uniquely and essentially what it is. In even simpler terms, a universal would be something like the "redness" of an apple. According to Plato, the red quality of the apple must exist because the apple is red. But"redness" itself isn't a tangible thing that can be directly experienced with the senses. You cannot produce "red" itself, only things that are red. But it is not only the fact that an apple is red that distinguishes it from other objects in the world. In addition to its "redness", an apple is an apple. An apple is not a pear. The quality unique to the apple is its "appleness". Thus, by appealing to the Platonic universals one can make a distinction between an apple and a pear, or all other things in the world. I. Thomas Hobbes' Nominalism Plato concluded that universals must actually exist. That is, that when "appleness" is appealed to, something ?out there' provides classification for the thing in question. This was (and still is) a radical notion that demanded explanation and was highly susceptible to criticism. Among those critics was Thomas Hobbes, a 16th Century social and political philosopher. In his work, The Leviathan, Hobbes argued that thought is a purely material event and that universals are just a result of language. Hobbes was a nominalist. Nominalism is the view that there are no universals over and above particular individuals2. For Hobbes, one of the answers to the question of universals could be found in the commonality of things. For instance, if a rock and a table are both hard, it is not because we refer to a universal, "hardness" for them, it is because we use the word "hard" to describe both of them. Another point made by Hobbes was that humans place things into categories in order to satisfy certain needs. Heimir Geirsson made a good analogy of this idea in his Metaphysics textbook, Beginning Metaphysics. He uses a weed for the analogy: A good example of this is the term "weed," which is defined as a plant that is not desired or cultivated by human beings and grows profusely. This is not a natural species that would exist even if human beings had never decided to classify some plants as "weeds." Many human beings are interested in having a special category for plants they don't like and that grow abundantly, and they create that category for plants they don't like, and they create that category with that name and definition. If human beings had not worried about weeds, then there would be no weeds. Of course, there would still be plants that we now call "weeds," e.g. dandelions and crabgrass, but they would not be weeds. Whether or not there are weeds depends on human beings classifying these plants as weeds.2 Geirsson's analogy is an interesting one because of the question it evokes. Why aren't all definitions like that of the weed, i.e., human classification? Hobbes thought that they were. For Hobbes, there were no real universals. Those things, which we refer to as universals, are simply created by humans out of a need to organize the world. II. Bertrand Russell on Platonic Universals Bertrand Russell attempted to defend the theory of Platonic universals. In order to do this he first thought it necessary to distinguish between universals that were qualities of things and those that were relations between things. The most practical way to separate qualities and relations is to understand them through their linguistic functions. Adjectives and common nouns express qualities or properties of