Lainaus "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I realize that there has been a huge literature about universals and
> particulars over the centuries. And many of the texts have interesting
> insights. But for practical ontology, I would recommend against using
> the words 'universal' and 'particular'.  (01) 
Sure, we can manage by using only 'property' and 'realized property', 
but 'universal' is only an abbreviation for 'a property that is 
realized at least once in one region of space in the past, now, or in 
the future'. If we especially want to emphasize that we are talking 
about realized properties vs. uncertain cases, then the abbreviation 
is handy.  (02)
Disregarding that, the property-particular dichotomy is needed e.g. 
for talking about multiply realizable properties such as 1kg. There 
are many different 1kg particulars which all share the identical 
property 1kg. Alternatively, one can say that there are several 
unidentical 1kg properties, where a property is thought to include its 
constituents in the fashion of tropes. Then again, instead of 
'constituents', one can use 'particular'. That is, some form of 
property-particular or property-constituent dichotomy is needed. Do 
you agree?  (03)
Avril  (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J  (05)