10. Evaluation of Plato and Aristotle Part 1/4

This is the first in a series of videos evaluating Plato and Aristotle. In this video we will focus on evaluating the metaphysics of universals. If you remember, metaphysics is all about studying the structure of reality. One strength of Plato's theory is that it answers the metaphysical problem of universals, that is, what it is for two different things to share a common property, so for example what it means for a particular rose, a crab or a fire engine, to all share a universal readiness. Plato made the realist claim that many different particulars can participate in one independently existing universal form, and this realist position is known as the one-over-the-many position. However, it could be argued that between equally strong competing explanations of the world, the simplest theory is always the best, in other words the one that posits the fewest entities, the one that uses the fewest things in its explanation. This is known as the law of parsimony or Occam's razor. Nominalists argue that the problem of universals can be solved without postulating the additional existence of universals. They say claiming that universals have a real separate existence from particulars is unnecessary in explaining the world. Universals are superfluous, we don't need them to be able to explain what it is for two different things to share the same property. John Locke, for example, argued that we simply have an idea in the mind which acts as a general representation of different particular beings. The idea is formed by abstracting from many different examples of the thing that we have experienced and has no real existence as such independently. David Hume also argued that we form an idea in the mind, but he argued that it is one specific particular we have experienced which is used to represent all similar sorts of particulars. Resemblance nominalists like Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that there isn't any one thing common to different particulars. Instead, like members of the same family, particulars share different overlapping characteristics which cause them to resemble each other. If nominalism and realism are equally strong explanations, the principle of parsimony would mean accepting nominalism as it posits only particulars and not also universals. And this was Occam's conclusion. Nominalism was the most efficient, the simplest, and therefore the best explanation for solving the problem of universals. If sound, this would certainly challenge Plato's ontological claim that universals have a real independent existence as forms. Other problems with Plato's realist solution include the third man argument and the problem of categorization. The third man argument was originally formulated in Plato's own Parmenides. Plato claimed that we need the forms to explain what particulars have in common. However, the third man argument says that following this logic, we would also need something further, a third man or a third thing, to explain what it is that the form and the particulars have in common, then something further to explain that relationship and so on and so on ad infinitum, to infinity, such that we never have a final explanation of anything. The problem of categorization is that there is no explanation of which properties exist as universals and why. It is not clear, for example, when it comes to the forms of particulars, whether there is a form of dog or a form of each breed of dog or both, whether there are forms of obsolete particulars that don't exist anymore, things that have become extinct, for example, or of things that haven't been invented yet. Stephen Law argued that this could lead to absurdities as well, like believing in the form of the bogey or the form of feces. Aristotle was neither a realist like Plato nor a nominalist. He argued for a middle way, sometimes called moderate realism. This is the idea that universals don't exist independently of physical particulars, but are a part of the real existence of the particulars themselves. They exist in the particular things. For example, the universal redness exists as part of the particular fire engine or rose. Universals are part of the unique essence or nature of individual things, determined by its four causes. This video has been brought to you by Jest Education. Thank you for watching and please subscribe to find out more.