(i) An aggregate is a group of more than one individuals that are grouped together by virtue of possessing some accident. 

(ii) A construct is an 'artificial' essence, not analogous to natural essence but instead having in its intension the existence of some accident that must be possessed by an individual in order to fall under its extension.

Examples of aggregates are 'All the men in New York,' 'the ten past presidents of the united states,' 'people under thirty.' Examples of constructs are 'king,' 'pilot,' 'footballer.' 

A construct can be understood by listing the requirements of an individual to be classed in its extension by showing in which of Aristotle's  categories of being the requirements belong, like so:

Construct1: king 
Substance: Human (Call this SubstanceH)            
Quality: Male (Call this accident1)
Action: Ruling a kingdom (Call this Accident2)

That is to say, if one is a king, one must be a substance, possess the accidental  quality of being male and possess the accidental quality of ruling a kingdom. It seems we can do similar with aggregates. For example:

Aggregate1: All men in 'in' New York.
Substance: Human (Call this SubstanceH)  
Quality: Male (Call this AccidentA)
Location: in New York (Call this AccidentB)

So it seems aggregates and constructs symbolise the same kind of reality. That is, for x to be a member of Aggregate1 it must be substanceH and possess Accident1 and Accident2. For x to be a member of Construct1 it must be SubstanceH and possess AccidentA and AccidentB. 

This is where the problem lies, aggregates are symbolised by particular terms (also called empirical or specific terms) while constructs are symbolised by general terms (also called universal terms, or species, or genera) and these two kinds of terms--particular and general--are said to  symbolise different kinds of reality. If there is no difference, however, between aggregates and constructs, then they are capable of symbolising the same kind of reality.

Last edited by Dennis (10/09/2016 11:49 am)