Universals vs. Tropes

Universals vs. Tropes

In examining the world around us we notice many similarities. There is a great deal of reoccurrence, which we can not help but to notice. The same shape occurs over and over in so many different objects. Rings, cans, bottles, candies, the same property we term roundness is found in all these objects. Likewise we see the same color in so many different objects. Often people say these recurrences make the world a dull place. The same set of properties continuously shows up. The best we can hope for is a new combination of these old features. Although this repetition is somewhat boring it is also incredibly important. The right sorts of recurrences, like musical notes, can make a musical piece much more captivating. If the world did not have these similarities running through it there would be no way of recognizing anything. No concepts could ever be made; thinking even in its most basic state would be impossible. The world would only be an experience.

Many people classify these properties found in our world as particular things in their own being. The color red as a particular of the apple. Thus all things that have the color red have either, depending on your view, the same particular or parts of the same particular. But are the properties of particulars themselves particulars?

In an effort to classify what sort of things properties are several possibilities have been introduced. The favorite theory of D.M. Armstrong was that of properties as universals. Armstrong beliefs that universals are an ontologically basic component of the world. He compares them to the letters of the alphabet, rather than the words. Universals are thus a basic component of things. Armstrong also made several other claims about universals. First universals must be sparse. There isn’t a universal corresponding to every set. There are only as many universals as there are genuine similarities. Every universal must also be instantiated by something, either in the past, present or future.

The question arises of why we should believe that all universals need be instantiated? The view that uninstantiated universals can exist is called the Platonist view. In this view we obtain two realms: one for the uninstantiated universals and one for the instantiated universals.