What Are Universals and Do Universals Really Exist?

In this essay I will be discussing the thought-provoking theory of universals and be asking whether this idea of an invisible yet prominent realm of reality can claim to have a place in existence. I shall firstly examine Plato's dialogue of Parmendides and see if a partition can be drawn between the forms and universals. I shall then move on to the opposing argument which invariably denies such dimensions in reality before reaching my conclusion.

The discussion between Socrates and Parmenides sets out to outline the differences of like and unlike things as a way of highlighting the stark conrast between the natuaral world in which factual truths are known and the transcendental world in which universal forms reside. In order to progress further a distinction between forms and universals must be made. Universals are not ideal forms of behaviour or characteristics that seek approval, they are as they are and not manipulatable. In 133e Parmenides uses the example of the slave and master in which he states that a master of slaves is not a master of mastery itself or the slavement of a slave does not explain slavery itself. The relationship between the two depicts a form of relation that might have been thought to acceptable at the time or a favourable idea by some but it does not go beyond that in that it does not bare any resemblance to mastery or slavery. Thus universals assume a hierachicial position because they do not concern themselves with how things may or not be percieved, their existence is beyond our comprehesion scope. Forms, on the other hand, allow us to sculpture prefered likes that are then universally shared such the justice in form now which would be comparably different now from a time when slavery and mastery ...

... middle of paper ...

...ace as they are believed to do so then I doubt I'm alone. But if they must instantiated in order to be realised then there are many instances in which universal truths are felt and realised then there are countless things that are simultaneously agreed upon such the idea of beauty. However, even this idea of beauty falls trap to what's 'in vogue'. There's no denying trends of all types have come in and out fashion, extending from slavery to the fluctuating matter of dress size. Who's to say this is all down to one thing - nothing ever changes in the case of universals but everything is up for review in terms of taste and desire. I conclude that although universal properties such as squareness or likeness exist they have not been proven to be anything other than intrinsically owned or shared values, thus cannot be claimed by a mystical outside source such the universe.