Still, he thinks it is an error to regard them as objects existing in a “third realm” of their own. For Aristotle, universals or forms are real, and they are not reducible to anything either material or mental. But he thinks Plato needs to be brought down to earth a bit. Like Plato, Aristotle is a realist in the sense we’ve been discussing. The Last Superstition introduces the Aristotelian version as more “down to earth” than that of Platonism (p. In today’s post I take as my point of departure some of the statements Feser makes, still in The Last Superstition, about the specifically Aristotelian version of universal-theoretical realism.Ģ. In that post I offered reasons for adopting a neo-Aristotelian anti-realist theory of universals, i.e., an anti-realism in rejecting all universals and yet a neo-Aristotelianism in affirming the existence of individual forms, natures, or essences. In my immediately previous post I took up the theory of universals, taking as my point of departure Edward Feser’s review, in The Last Superstition,* of realism in the theory of universals, more specifically Platonist realism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |