The use of
the term reality in philosophy to denote universals makes it logically
impossible to state, as Triadic
Philosophy emphatically does, that everything is real, that reality is everything known and
unknown, and that Reality is a logical first in the triad Reality Ethics and
Aesthetics. When I first encountered this problem, I quite easily grouped
universals under the category of things that are ontological, that have universality,
that participate in being itself. Related terms. beyond universal, would be
reason, will, love etc. One reason for conceiving things thus may have been due
to a misunderstanding of Peirce. It seemed clear to me that the vague
beginnings of thought that Peirce called signs, the source of all thought I was
given to understand, were "real". I had no trouble accepting that,
given my own presupposition. But it
seemed to me that to distinguish such "reals" from everything else
was creating a confusion that need not
be. So I held and hold that reality is all. And that what is universal within
reality is ontological. This relates in my view to ethics because it would seem
to me that we wish being to be the locus
of those things which values represent. But that gets beyond the subject of how
the word real is used in philosophy. I am sure it is correct that real is used
to denote universality. I just happen to think that that creates a confusion
and a reduction of what reality in fact is.
)))).jpg)
