@Florence 🧡 That sounds really engrossing. May I ask you to explain what the word ‘universals’ mean in your context? I’m Curious.

@ACG2 It's too complex for a toot. Propositions, proofs, symbolic logic, the form v matter argument, meta v non-meta, metaphysics and insolubila essentially. Try Ockham's Theory of terms or Quodlibetal questions for a kind of overview. Or, for a more basic version, Anselm's Proslogion plus Guanilo's response (known as The Fool's response). I'm not being obfuscatory, it's just too difficult to explain in 500 words! xx

@ACG2 Or, to put it into 101 terms, if 'table' exists, and 'divinity' exists, then which is real and which is not real. A table you can see, buy, touch, dvinity not so much. One is 'real' real, the other is kind of real. Which is real? Point being, if the 'divnity type tyings do not realy exist, how do we know what they mean? And, if they don't really exist, then neither dores God. Then you get into Anselm's defense of God from the prevoiusly stated position.

@ACG2 And then those questions lead on to 'universals' such as 'mankind' which doesn't and does exist. Mankind doesn't, humans do. God, same thing. What is the difference between God and Godzilla in real terms? Is there a way of proving the 'perfection' of a universal term, if you propose that such a term 'exists' in the first place. It's a 75,000 word doctorate, so tricky to explain. If you have a Philosophy background, then you will get the gist?

@Florence Thank you for this. I understood the 101 version. Go You!!! 💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽

@Florence @ACG2
Holy moly! (pun intended) Wow! Fascinating and kinda overwhelming. LOL

I just have to ask, how did you come to think of these questions, ideas? As a Recovering Catholic, I wasn't taught to question, to investigate but I decided that was screwed up when I was young, plus I didn't like the whole "God will strike you down" if you take a penny from mommy's table.

@see_the_sus @ACG2 This particular question has taxed philosopher's since Aristotle. Literally. They're not new.

@Florence @ACG2

aaahhh, shoulda figured those fellas would be involved. LOL

@see_the_sus @ACG2 Yep! They always are. And every generation hopes they'll succeed where the others failed. No one does of course, but we build ourselves up to be better. Even when we're not! 😀

@Florence @ACG2

I've often considered reading Aristotle, Plato, etc. but get waylaid with other books/authors.

@see_the_sus @ACG2 It's so easy to intend things but not get round to them. I'm a dreadful one for doing that!

@Florence @see_the_sus Weirdly, just came across a book that talked about this “gang of three”. I’ll have to look it up tomorrow. Might be a way to get introduced to the theorists.

@see_the_sus @ACG2 Then, during Medieval times, the scholars got themselves into all sorts of trouble by investigating this and ending up concluding God wasnt real. Then they tried to pick their way out of that particular mess. Hence we had a theological schism across many faiths. And that's where I'm picking it up. But nearly all philosophers have had a go at it. It's an age old problem, played around with by using symbolic logic.

@ACG2 Or go here for a longer, but more coherent explanation...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/