ABSTRACT
Your question has occupied me for several days now.1 I have asked myself whether it is not necessary to give up my view that general concepts are correlative pairs (a view which is required if we think of the so-called abstracta such as “redness”, “evidence”, etc., as being something-a “divisive” or a “form”—which inheres in things). Should we not say instead that there is nothing whatever that corresponds to these abstracta (and not merely that there is no thing that corresponds to them)? In other words, that we are here confronted with a widespread error which may be attributed to language? Even Aristotle was infected with this error, for he frequently took language as his point of orientation; he was over-conservative in his approach to language, just as I have been over-conservative in my approach to him.
