Actual beings (or real beings) - are beings that are really existing outside the mind. They are in reality, and are independent of a mind.

Ideal beings (or logical beings)- are beings that exists but only insofar as it is a mind of an actual being. They exist solely in the mind.

Universals - are ideal beings that are solely in the mind BUT with foundation in reality. These are concepts that are abstracted from reality, which finds what is common, transcendental, and univocal from actual beings.

Nominalism reduces the power of abstraction to mere spoken words which is void of any link from the external object and the mind that is capable of abstraction.

Platonic realism on the other hand holds that there are ideal beings really existing in reality. Do we say that an idea horse really exists outside the mind along with real or actual horses?

Aristotle argued that the universals are to be found in the objects themselves, but not as really existing, rather the universals themselves are only abstracted by the mind from reality.

By definition 'universal' means 'all', 'every', with no exception!
If there is one exception, one refutation, it is not 'universal'!
It is a common word with no need of redefinition. Your definition weakens and obfuscates the meaning to vagueness and obscurity.
If you have an epiphany which requires redefinition of a word, that's one thing, as long as you define the word when you use it. Evolution of understanding requires such.
Arbitrary redefinitions to accommodate 'personal theories' and 'beliefs' is the spurious 'illogic' of 'religion'.

(There are no 'concrete things' except in our imagination, as appearances, 'beliefs'... Your 'concrete things' are no more or less 'real' than the 'concrete things' of your dreams at night. Seems real then, too.)

If you offered this as an 'interesting thing' (if you don't examine it too closely) that you found on some freaky new age website, or your personal 'beliefs', I wouldn't have bothered responding. But as you offer this... stuff... as if some kind of 'universal truth', I have to say that it is mushbrained (ignorant and lacking in internal logical consistency).
If you said; "in my opinion...", I would not have responded.
I cannot/will not 'argue' someone's 'beliefs'.

I'm sorry, but i think you had the wrong notion of Universals. It is not the same as universal truths. It doesn't even have anything to do with new age thinking.

And with regard to new age mysticism or the new age movement, I have a fair amount of knowledge about them and I honestly find their doctrines absurd and unacceptable.

This is a philosophy site, a place for critical thought and the fruits thereof.
What you have offered doesn't belong in the 'metaphysics' section.
Perhaps the 'lounge'?
This (and the others);

does not seem to qualify as 'fruit' thereof, either. Where'd you get this stuff? Do you 'believe' it?

If I have the "wrong notion of Universals" (in your opinion) because i do not share your opinion of this (IMO) vapid and meaningless nonsense, I can live with that.
Your quotes (are they quoted from somewhere? Where?) regarding your 'beings', as you describe, smack full-bore of New-Age-guardian-angels-on-my-shoulder stuff.
Works for some, not for me. All fluff and no substance. Anti-philosophy...
and certainly not the 'universal' to which the OP referred.

ooooooooooooooooooooooo

Now I will have to say. You obviously know nothing about what I'm speaking.

The definition I offered was the metaphysics of Aristotle and Thomas aquinas. It's a shame you reacted like that.

Obviously you have the wrong notion of universals because the question mentioned about platonic realism and nominalism, which in fact is not about new age movement or something like that. It simply is about ontological value of universals, which in lay man's term may be compared to common nouns.

I don't know what alarmed you that much. It's annoying when you said my post don't belong in the metaphysics section when your post doesn't even belong in philosophy, your post is void of philosophical scrutiny, it's just scrutiny.

OMG! Are you refering to Plato and the rest of the stuff that you quoted? You find them "absurd and unacceptable"?!? So, you were just offering that crap in response to the OP? If this is the case, then my response shouldn't have bothered you. I'm sorry if it sounded personal, but you did post that garbage and I responded to it (not 'you').


It's not a shame at all, it is the reaction of critical examination to crap.
I dont care what or who's crap you quote. Your (their) 'spooks and spirits' are just that much unsupportable crap. Plato was full of crap with his 'forms'. The quotes themselves ripe with cognitive errors, fallacies and ignorance of science. But, if you find them "absurd and unacceptable", so do I. Then why is it a 'shame' that I called a spade a spade? There seems to be a failure to communicate...


Yet he offered a definition attempting the common (and therein lay the confusion);
u⋅ni⋅ver⋅sal –adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius.
7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause.
8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic.
9. Logic. (of a proposition) asserted of every member of a class.
10. Linguistics. found in all languages or belonging to the human language faculty.
11. Machinery. noting any of various machines, tools, or devices widely adaptable in position, range of use, etc.
12. Metalworking. a. (of metal plates and shapes) rolled in a universal mill.
b. (of a rolling mill or rolling method) having or employing vertical edging rolls.

13. something that may be applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an entity that can be in many places at the same time.
14. a trait, characteristic, or property, as distinguished from a particular individual or event, that can be possessed in common, as the care of a mother for her young.
15. Logic. a universal proposition.
16. Philosophy. a. a general term or concept or the generic nature that such a term signifies; a Platonic idea or Aristotelian form.
b. an entity that remains unchanged in character in a series of changes or changing relations.
c. Hegelianism. concrete universal.

17. language universal.
18. Machinery. universal joint

And then "mentioned about platonic realism and nominalism". There were mixed messeges.


"Value"? To whom? I'd imagine that something only has "ontological value" (odd phrase) if it is true/real/universal, the 'value' being in it's very existence. Value? To whom does reality/truth need to benefit to have 'value'?


Not alarmed, bad day. Dental.


Apologies. You are right. I was being judgemental of the quality of the thought, but, even though that stuff is crap, it is still (thought) considered (classical) philosophy and certainly belongs here (to be refuted and dismissed again and again and again...).
Nothing personal intended.
(That 'invisible spook' stuff is stretching it a bit, IMO (even with the pain meds).)

HAHAHA you never understood anything eh??? You don't even seem to reply on the same line thought

It is sad that no discussion regarding universals can take place without such disruptions. I would have really enjoyed reading and responding

Probably if you had a "line thought"...

Actually such disruptions were on topic.
If you have something to offer, stop whining and out with it.
I'm out of here.
Happy trails.

Universals are important in logic and metaphysics. It's sad that one can't even discuss philosophy on a philosophy forum.