This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In section 15 of Berkeley's Principles is the positive side to the negative assessment mentioned in the article. It goes as follows: When I demonstrate any proposition concerning triangles, it is to be supposed that I have in view the universal idea of a triangle; which ought not to be understood as if I could frame an idea of a triangle which was neither equilateral nor scalenon nor equicrural. But only that the particular triangle I consider, whether of this sort or that it matters not, does equally stand for and represent all rectilinear triangles whatsoever, and is in that sense universal
I thought this might be worth including, but I'm not sure whether it is necessary. Teutanic (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)