Talk:Universals

A few comments...

Should live at universal or universal (metaphysics); one can speak of a universal.

'Property' and 'universal' are not coextensive. For those who like to talk about universals at all, relations and types are usually (maybe always?) two more posited kinds of universals.

Socrates, arguably, spoke of universals in his search for the logos of various virtues; Plato is the first to say (as far as I know) that universals are heavenly forms, with the rest of the apparatus of Platonic Realism. Maybe you could say he's the first to formulate a theory of universals, or to discuss them explicitly. --Larry Sanger 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One can speak of an ethic and of ethics. Similarly, one can speak of a universal and of universals. I've seen plenty of books and journal articles that talk of universals. I'm not sure about article titling. "Universals and particulars" was another possible article title. --Tom Morris 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

'Ethic' is not (usually) the singular of 'ethics'; more to the point, 'ethics' is not usually used as a plural but as the name of a field, which does not have a plural. The analogy is not apt. By contrast, 'universal' is the singular, "universals" the plural. Of course philosophers talk about universals (plural). My point has nothing to do with philosophical usage but CZ policy, which says that article titles should be in the singular. This is why we have an article titled "bird" even though it is about birds.

Just for the convenience of the reader who wants brief introductions to the jargon, we should have two separate articles, one about universals, which lives at universal, and one about particulars, which lives at particular. Theories of universals should be described at the former; the latter might (I imagine) be relatively short, explaining how philosophers use 'particular', and referring the reader to universal, or universal (metaphysics), for some further relevant details. --Larry Sanger 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)