UNIVERSALS AS THE BASIS OF

THE

REALISM

I.

HE previous essays provide, I hope, in rough outline a sketch of the kind of Realism I am trying to advocate.

I purposely refrain from speaking of this sketch as a system, because, as I pointed out in the introduction, it is of the very essence of this view of the Universe that there is no system, in the ordinary Philosophical sense. The realism advocated in these pages is, in fact, not so much a view of the world as a method of looking at it. It is not even a method in the technical sense of that word so much as an attitude of mind, and I shall try to show in the next two essays that as an attitude of mind it can be applied to two such widely different subjects as the relation of thought to temperament, and the philosophical theory of the state, as well as to the more orthodox objects of metaphysical enquiry.

It will, however, serve the purpose both of filling in the outline given in the preceding chapters, and of bringing what I have said into relation with other Realist systems, if some general remarks are made on the subject of that vexed philosophical entity the "universal."

It will be sufficiently clear from the preceding chapter on the concept of beauty, that I follow very closely the Platonic view of universals, or in Plato's

language "Forms."

Certain additions must, however, be made to his account, and certain distinctions pointed out, in order that the theory of universals, which I should regard as the basis of common sense Realism, may be brought into line with modern philosophy.

With the gist of the Platonic argument as it appears, for instance, in the "Republic," I should agree. All just acts must partake of a common nature, in value of which they are all just. This common nature is other than any or all of the individual acts which may be called just. It is, in fact, an object of thought, that which is before the mind when we think of justice. In saying that it is an object of thought I do not mean that it is a mental construction. It is known by mind as a fact subsisting independently in the universe, and this fact is not modified by the circumstance that mind knows it.

44

Let us assume, for instance, that "X" is a just action which took place in the year 1918; let us also assume that "X" is known by "Y," an individual who contemplates the act. In 1919 "Y" dies, so that "X" ceases to be known by "Y." Is "X," or the qualitative nature of "X," an act committed in the past, modified or altered by "Y's " ceasing to know it? It would seem not, for the fact cannot be altered by an event happening a year later.

Let us further assume that in 1920 the earth collides with a comet, and is reduced again to

chaos, all mind upon the earth being destroyed in the process. The action "X" now ceases to be known by any mind. Does this involve any modification in the qualities of "X" beyond the subtraction of the one quality of being known by mind? I conclude not, and conclude therefore that the justice of "X" is not a mental quality dependent for its existence on mind, but an inherent attribute of "X" arising from its participation in the Form of justice itself.

A similar argument may be applied to prove the existence of the Form of justice, and we arrive at the Platonic conclusion that the forms are eternal, non-mental, immutable entities, known by mind, but not owing to mind the fact of their existence.

Difficulties in the theory occur when we begin to examine the nature of the forms or universals themselves. Three types may be distinguished.

First, the universal which exists for each class of sensible particular, e.g., the universals horse, table,

man.

Secondly the universal which exists for each class of mathematical entity, e.g., square, triangle,

two.

Thirdly the most complete form of universal, such as the universals goodness, truth and beauty.

Universals of the first class are often called pseudo-universals, because they are regarded as a mere abstract of the class they denote. It is therefore denied by many that the universal

44

man exists. Berkeley and Hume for example said that when we think of man we form the image of some particular man.

This contention I believe to be psychologically untrue. I believe that what is denoted to mind

44

by the expression man" is the universal man. This seems to me to be so because the word "man" would still retain some meaning if no individual men existed to be thought of. Nor is that meaning a mental construction or mental image created by my mind only, for it is clear that the word man would continue to have a meaning even if I ceased to be alive to think of that meaning. Similarly the meaning which it has, whatever that may be, would still continue to be its meaning even if no mind were left to think of it. Therefore the meaning of the word man is neither any particular man, nor one of my thoughts, nor one of anybody's thoughts, it is the universal man which is an object of thought.

This point may be seen more clearly by considering the universals which exist for classes of particulars which are themselves not real, e.g., the universals griffin, unicorn or chimæra.

The question may be asked how can the universal griffin appear to the mind or be thought of unless it is there to appear to the mind or be thought of, and in these cases we cannot answer by saying with Hume that we are thinking of an individual griffin, because no one has seen an individual griffin.

As Dr. Moore has pointed out, when I am thinking of a unicorn, what I am thinking of is certainly not nothing: "if it were nothing then when I think of a griffin I should also be thinking of nothing, and there would be no difference between thinking of a griffin and thinking of a unicorn. But certainly there is a difference; and what can the difference be except that in the one case what I am thinking of is a unicorn, and in the other a griffin." Therefore a unicorn must be there to be thought of, and it must further be thought of as being something different from a griffin. Therefore, the universal unicorn" exists, even if its only ascertainable attribute is its property of being thought of by me.

This distinguishes the universal unicorn from the universals of real entities, such as the universal man, which possesses other attributes besides the property of being thought of by me.

The next class of universal is the class of mathematical universals. These possess this peculiarity among universals, that they have perfect particulars or instances, and these universals must be carefully distinguished from the perfect specimens of their instances.

The existence of a perfect instance of a mathematical universal may be shown in this way.

When we demonstrate with the help of a figure a geometrical proposition we are not really thinking about the figure we have drawn. As Plato pointed out, the figure we have drawn is in