Critical Analysis of E. J. Lowe’s View about Universals

The universals are one of the controversial topics that have attracted philosophers’ attention since Aristotle’s discussion. E. J. Lowe is an Aristotelian Philosopher who has worked on universals. This article tries to perform a critical analysis of Aristotelian universals from E.J.Lowe's viewpoint. We will explain Lowe’s argument in favor of Realism will be analyzed. Illustrating weaknesses of opposite theories, he rejects all possibilities but Realist’s claim. Lowe believes that his view is able to provide a powerful explanatory framework for natural law. Without universals, Lowe holds, natural events are nothing but permanent regularities that originate from accidental generalization. So universals play a key role in his ontological system and only with the aid of them natural laws are justifiable. Propositions of natural laws deal with nature of entities, namely universals, whereas particulars instances by themselves are not able to establish a firm basis for natural laws owing to the fact that particulars refers to existent state of affairs. Following Aristotle, Lowe argues that Immanent universals are more reasonable. He holds that universals are abstract (by abstract, he means the entities that don’t have spatiotemporal features) because he thinks that concreteness of universals has some contradictory results (concrete entity is not abstract). We will consider strengths and weaknesses existing in his ideas. Authors believe that universal thanks to their different nature could be (and actually are) concrete.