|
Within metaphysics, particulars are, of these may say, identified by what it is non: it is non abstractions, not multiply-instantiated--i.e. it is concrete. (There are, yet, theories of abstract particulars or tropes.) Hence, Socrates is a particular (there's only 1 Socrates-a-teacher-of-Plato & a single can't produce copies of him, e.g., by cloning him, forswearing introducing fresh, distinct particulars). Redness, by counterpoint, is non the particular, because (these are held by metaphysical realists) it is abstract & multiply-instantiated (the bike, this apple, & that girl's hair come tons red).
the fact of the matter is that completely such terms come utilized by philosophers by having a rough-&-quick idea of how else it act. Whenever there exists confusion or even want of agreement all about the specifics, that is a reflection of the fact that philosophers own several competing metaphysical theories that inform sir thomas more accurate, however idiosyncratic, accounts of the meanings one terms. Hence, e.g., for convenience inside formulating the guide to the problem of universals, 'particular' can be pressed into service inside describing a particular time of redness of the particular apple--potentially though redness (existence abstract) is precisely the kind of tool that is non supposed to exist as particular. Understand philosophical jargon.
Around logic, particulars are the nature and severity of statement, contrasting the vary of quantity from either the universal. Within traditional logic it is the "I" & "O" propositions, signified per quantity "Some". Inside symbolic logic the particular is designated by an existential quantifier.
|