એરિસ્ટોટલ's predecessor, પ્લેટો, argued that all things have a universal form, which could be either a property, or a relation to other things. When we look at an apple, દા.ત., we see an apple, and we can also analyze a form of an apple. In this distinction, there is a particular apple and a universal form of an apple. Moreover, we can place an apple next to a book, so that we can speak of both the book and apple as being next to each other.

પ્લેટો argued that there are some universal forms that are not a part of particular things. દા.ત., it is possible that there is no particular good in existence, but "good" is still a proper universal form. Bertrand Russell is a contemporary philosopher that agreed with પ્લેટો on the existence of "uninstantiated universals".

એરિસ્ટોટલ disagreed with પ્લેટો on this point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. એરિસ્ટોટલ argued that there are no universals that are unattached to existing things. According to એરિસ્ટોટલ, if a universal exists, either as a particular or a relation, then there must have been, must be currently, or must be in the future, something on which the universal can be predicated. Consequently, according to એરિસ્ટોટલ, if it is not the case that some universal can be predicated to an object that exists at some period of time, then it does not exist.

One way for contemporary philosophers to justify this position is by asserting the eleatic principle.

In addition, એરિસ્ટોટલdisagreed with પ્લેટો about the location of universals. As પ્લેટો spoke of the world of the forms, a location where all universal forms subsist, એરિસ્ટોટલ maintained that universals exist within each thing on which each universal is predicated. So, according to એરિસ્ટોટલ, the form of apple exists within each apple, rather than in the world of the forms.

પૂર્વગામી
સાર્વત્રિક અને વિશેષત:
વકતૃત્વ અને કાવ્ય
વ્યાવહારિક દર્શન