ething, either in the past, present or future. The question arises of why we should believe that all universals need be instantiated? The view that uninstantiated universals can exist is called the Platonist view. In this view we obtain two realms: one for the uninstantiated universals and one for the instantiated universals. The Platonic view is very hard to belief. Many people find it hard to fathom two separate realms for uninstantiated and instantiated universals. If one rejects this view we are in effect bringing all the universals down to earth. Everything that exists is in a certain space and time. It would be enough if a universal did not exist now, but existed in the past, or will exist in the future. Having this in mind there can be no universal such as "unicornhood". We can view a things properties as constituents of the thing and think of the properties as universals. Since universals are located in space and time universals are "wholly" present wherever their instances are. In bringing the universals into a world with space and time it seems to say something rather strange. If a particular universal is located "wholly" in every object that contains that property then they are apparently simultaneously located in multiple places. This view of universals seems strange as something can not possibly exist entirely in two separate areas of space and time. But, Armstrong clearly states that universals are "wholly" present and are found wherever the particulars that instantiate them are found. If two rings each have the property roundness, than roundness, a universal, is to be found in two different places. Some philosophers have simply tried to look past the problem by accepting the multiple locations of universals. Simply ignoring the problem though does not make it go away. One may attempt to argue that it is a flaw in our language that brings about the problem. When a person is presented with two white objec...
