The discussion of the universals dates back to the set of arguments that are presented by both Plato and Aristotle. The debate of the universal are argued by the two philosophers tend to delve into the general and abstract knowledge that are primarily derived from the senses of a human. A notable example of the universals are brought about by the two authors is color and property. One can make a claim of knowledge of the color red owing to the color that he or she saw. Additionally, one can have the affirmation of seeing a dwelling and asserting that the dwelling is a house. However, the idea of the house and that of color green have no specificity and are not exclusive to the property of color that was viewed by the observer. As a result, such information is abstract. Therefore, one can authoritatively assert that the knowledge of the green color and house are all universals. According to Plato, the existence of the universals is often devoid of the personal experiences that human may have. Such argument strongly emanates from the theory of Forms that has been advanced by Plato and further proclaimed in the Greek terms of idea and Eidos.
The arguments that opine that universality is about universality further affirm that what we know in the form of the general knowledge and information is in existence. As a result, there is need to determine the forms of realities that may be present. Existences in universality are in the forms of like and unlike. When one upholds the argument of like and unlike being present in universality, the very individual further recognizes that their experiences are many, thus, making it not possible to come up with the general knowledge or information that one may need.
In the Plato’s Parmenides, with the particular focus on the discussion between Parmenides and Socrates, the arguments that are related to the theory of forms surfaces and enables one to have an understanding of the existence of various ways. The theory of ways makes explicit references to the reason and nature of existence of both property and predicates. There are specific reasons and justification as to why various things tend to have unique properties that make it exclusive to identify them. In the theory of forms, the things that are associated with the different forms are separate from the single identity of the form.
The discussion of the Paramedines further advances the paradigmatistic account. In the paradigmatic account, taking the case of an object A that needs to partake within an object B, then the object B has to take the form A. As a result wholly, the arguments assert that there has to be internal inconsistency. The internal contradiction comes out through the set of arguments that are raised by Zeno in the set of arguments that are presented in the paper. According to Zeno, the, unlike things, cannot like and vice versa. As a result, there is uniformity in the way and manner in which one gets to identify him or her with matter. The arguments by Zeno may be confusing, but their primary intent is to facilitate the understanding of the theory of forms. The primary opinion that Zeno wants the readers and the wider audience to understand is that nature has various forms, but each form has to be unique. A change in the substances of a given form would mean that the form is no longer existent, thus, the need for the consistency in the forms. The discussion by Zeno and the premises that are brought up by Zeno in the article further enables one to have an inner and deeper knowledge on philosophical arguments. The basis of having philosophical arguments is to propagate knowledge and not to show off the knowledge that may have. Philosophical arguments are intelligent discussion that aims to propagate knowledge through the valid account and not a basis of show off for the parties that entangled in a given set of argument or arguments. The arguments that are brought about by Zeno are also in line with the assertions that Socrates is having regarding the philosophical arguments. Socrates affirms in verbose that he is in agreement with Zeno and the difference that may be evident is in the wordings that they use in arguing out their point.
Taking universals from a perspective of Parmenides creates a state of looking how these people lived at a time when people exhibited different characters. The expression of reality as a mix of many different characteristic is one kind of way at looking at life. Meaning that nothing comes and works on its own, but a complete complement of most of the parts. This creates a complete universe where Zeno acknowledges that ‘reality expresses not more than one’.
There is the one likeness that Socrates introduces that makes universal the perspective of looking at it really interesting. From his theory, universal property come in to play to make the screening right. We see Parmenides shows that there are various aspects of him trying to muscle different scenarios that would create room for the reasons against going strong on his reducing forms that exist to the level of different ideas that may exist.
The eloquence exhibited by working at the of Socrates in terms of submitting points that mattered meant that they were in agreement, with signaling of nodding of heads, as a show of solidarity. This is seen when Pythodorus gives his lectures making universals be seen from a likeness point of view. Socrates look at the whole scenario creates a message of hope for the team that was working at the background in terms of receiving forms as partial or fully. However, in reducing forms, the universals makes Parmenides to be a realistic way of making it a reality. Going back to the notion of idea as a mere projection of an image, but a property model that does not really affect the goings. Thus having a negative effect to the universals making what Parmenides was urging not come into reality at the end of the day. But his assertions can hold water if the goings are scrutinized to create the best out of all the components.
In conclusion, the Parmenides are primarily concerned with the variety of forms and the choice of words that one uses. The Parmenides asserts that the choice of words is crucial since twisting the choice of words could change the original meaning of the form that is under discussion. In the argument of the Parmenides, there is need to affirm that a form has diverse separates in itself, the separates also tend to merge to constitute one whole.