Bibliography on the History of the Problem of Universals. English studies

Adams, Marilyn McCord. 1977. "Ockham's nominalism and unreal entities." The Philosophical Review no. 76:144–176.

———. 1982. "Universals in the Early Fourteenth Century." In The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy from the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600, edited by Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony P. and Pinborg, Jan, 411–439. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1987. William Ockham. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Two volumes.

Part One: Ontology, pp. 3-313.

Adamson, Peter. 2007. "Knowledge of Universals and Particulars in the Baghdad School." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:141–164.

Amerini, Fabrizio. 2005. "What Is real: a reply to Ockham's ontological program." Vivarium no. 43:187–212.

"When Ockham's logic arrives in Italy, some Dominican philosophers bring into question Ockham's ontological reductionist program. Among them, Franciscus de Prato and Stephanus de Reate pay a great attention to refute Ockham's claim that no universal exists in the extra-mental world. In order to reject Ockham's program, they start by reconsidering the notion of "real", then the range of application of the rational and the real distinction. Generally, their strategy consists in re-addressing against Ockham some arguments extracted from Hervaeus Natalis's works. Franciscus's and Stephanus's basic idea is that some universals are not acts of cognition, but extra-mental, predicable things. Such things are not separable from singulars, nonetheless they are not the same as those singulars. Consequently, it is not necessary to allow, as Ockham does, that if two things are not really identical, they are really different and hence really separable. According to them, it is possible to hold that two things are not really identical without holding that they are also really non-identical and hence really different. Basically, their reply relies on a different notion of the relation of identity. Identity is regarded as an intersection of classes of things, so that it is possible to say that two things are really identical without saying that they also are the same thing. Franciscus and Stephanus, however, do not seem to achieve completely their aim."

———. 2016. "Hervaeus Natalis on Universals." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 109–138. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Amerini, Fabrizio, and Cesalli, Laurent, eds. 2017. Universals in the Fourteenth Century. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Arlig, Andrew W. 2020. "Universals." In Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy Philosophy between 500 and 1500. Second Edition, edited by Lagerlund, Henrik, 1992–2000. Dordrecht: Springer.

Abstract: "Medieval discussions of universals are some of the most sophisticated and sustained discussions in the history of this topic. This article focuses on medieval discussions of the ontological status of universals. Speculations about the existence of universal things were prompted by what was said (and what was not said) in ancient Greek treatises on logic and metaphysics. Throughout the medieval period, philosophers divided roughly into those who believed that there was some mind-independent reality that was common to many particulars (i.e., realism) and those who believed that universality was a mind-dependent property (i.e., anti-realism or nominalism).

Anti-realists critiqued contemporary versions of realism. Realists responded to the anti-realists with ever more sophisticated accounts of the real basis for predication and classification."

Bahlul, Raja. 2009. "Avicenna and the Problem of Universals." Philosophy and Theology no. 21:3–25.

Bakker, Paul J. J. M., and Kok, Femke J. 2016. "Lawrence of Lindores on Universal Knowledge. An Editìon with Analysis of his Commentary on Aristotle's De anima, quaestio I, 5." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 301–320. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Bates, Todd. 2010. Duns Scotus and the Problem of Universals. London: Continuum.

Baxter, Donald M. 2017. "Hume on abstraction and identity." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 285–304. New York: Oxford University Press.

Beal, M.W. 1973. "Universality without universals: a deleted argument from Berkeley's introduction to the 'Principles'." The Modern Schoolman no. 50:301–310.

Benevich, Fedor. 2018. "The Metaphysics of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karïm al-Śahrastãnï (d. 1153): Aḥwãl and Universals." In Islamic Philosophy from the 12th to the 14th Century, edited by Al Ghouz, Abdelkader, 327–355. Bonn: V&R unipress - Bonn University Press.

Benson, Hugh. 1988. "Universals as sortals in the Categories." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly no. 69:282–306.

"In this essay I argue that Aristotle is committed to a sortal analysis of the universal. According to this analysis something is a universal ("to katholou") just in case it is predicated "essentially" of a plurality of entities. I find evidence for such an analysis in the Categories, Posterior analytics, and Metaphysics Gamma. Finally, I suggest that an appeal to this analysis may help resolve a longstanding difficulty in Metaphysics Zeta, viz., Aristotle's commitment to (a) substances are not universals; (b) forms ("eide") are substances; and (c) forms ("eide") are predicated of a plurality of entities."

Bertolacci, Amos. 2024. "Inheritance and Emergence of Transcendentals: Albert the Great between Avicenna and Averroes on First Universals." In Albert the Great and his Arabic Sources: Medieval Science between Inheritance and Emergence, edited by Krause, Katja and Taylor, Richard C., 335–369. Turnhout: Brepols.

Biard, Joël. 2010. "Noinalism in the Later Middle Ages." In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Volume 2, edited by Pasnau, Robert and Van Dyke, Christina, 6661–673. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Case Study: the Theory of Universals, pp. 43-49.

Boler, John. 1963. "Abailard and the Problem of Universals." Journal of the History of Philosophy no. 1:37–51.

———. 1985. "Ockham's clever." Franciscan Studies no. 45:119–144.

Bolton, Martha Brandt. 2017. "Locke's Essay and Leibniz's Nouveaux Essais: Competing Theories of Universals." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 220–251. New York: Oxford University Press.

Borgo, Marta. 2007. "Universals and the Trinity: Aquinas's Commentary on Book I of Peter Lombard's «Sentences»." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:315.342.

Bosley, Richard. 1985. "What revision of realism could meet Ockham's critique." Franciscan Studies no. 45:111–118.

Braakhis, Henk A. G. 1988. "Agricola's view on universals." In ìRodolphus Agricola Phrisius 1444-1485: Proceedings of the International Conference at the University of Groningen 28-30 October 1985, edited by Akkerman, Fokke and Vanderjagt, Arie Johan, 239–247. Leiden: Brill.

Brakas, George. 1988. Aristotle's Concept of the Universal. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Contents: Acknowledgments 1; Preface 3; I: Recent Views of Aristotle's Universal 11; II: The Definition of Aristotle’s Early Concept of the Universal 17; III: Interpretations of Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Categories in Recent Times 21; Chapter IV: A Consideration of the Main Interpretations 31; V: The Categories and the Meaning of ‘an Existent’ at the Time of the Prior Analytics 55; VI: Fundamentals of Aristotle’s Theory of the Simple Statement at the Time of the De Interpretatione and Prior Analytics 65; VII: Interpretations of 'is Said of' in the Recent Literature 77; VIII: The Senses of 'Is Asserted of' 87; IX: Aristotle’s Early, Middle and Late Views of the Universal 97; Selected Bibliography 111-113.

Bronowski, Ada. 2007. "The Stoic View on Universals." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:71–88.

Brower, Jeffrey E. 2016. "Aquinas and the Problem of Universals." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research no. 92:715–735.

Brown, Stephen F. 2007. "Universals." In Historical Dictionary of Medieval Philosophy and Theology, edited by Brown, Stephen F. and Flores, Juan Carlos, 285–286. Lanham: The Scarecow Press.

Bulthuis, Nathaniel D. 2016. "John Buridan on Universals." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 267–300. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Burnett, Charles. 1995. "Adelard of Bath's Doctrine on Universals and the "Consolatio Philosophiae" of Boethius." Didascalia no. 1:1–13.

Calma, Dragos. 2020. "Metaphysics as a Way of Life: Heymericus de Campo on Universals and the “Inner Man”." Vivarium no. 58:305–334.

Abstract: "Pierre Hadot famously claimed that, between Antiquity and German Idealism, Western philosophy had lost its practical role of guiding the life of the practitioner.

Scholars who challenged this view focused on two medieval models. This article argues that the overlooked work Colliget principiorum iuris naturalis, divini et humani philosophice doctrinalium by Heymericus de Campo postulates a third model. On the basis of St. Paul’s teaching about the “inner man,” Heymericus reconsiders the Aristotelian doctrines of abstraction and of being as such in relation to the Neoplatonic model of intellectual progression and interior conversion. In a realist conceptual framework, he holds that only metaphysics reflects the true nature of the human being inasmuch as it presupposes a way of life that assumes both the interaction with and withdrawal from the sensible world. However, Heymericus’ theory is neither limited to nor conditioned by Christian principles, but by Peripatetic philosophy (understood in the broad, Albertinian tradition)."

Cardenas, Daniel Reyes. 2018. "Duns Scotus and Peirce on the importance of Universals and Scientific Realism." Escritos / Medellín-Colombia no. 26:83–106.

Abstract: "By offering a historical overview of the problem of universals and by focusing in the contributions of the medieval philosopher John Duns Scotus and the founder of American Pragmatism, Charles Peirce, the article introduces Peirce’s insight on the

problem. Such insight is tracked by explaining the connections between Aristotle, Duns Scotus, and Peirce. Peirce’s account was named by himself ‘Scholastic Realism’, and such Realism of universals aims to provide a feasible account for contemporary

Scientific Realism. The problem of universals, after such a reading, appears as a continuous and vibrant issue that defines both traditional and contemporary philosophical problems."

Carré, Meyrick Heath. 1946. Realists and Nominalists. London: Oxford University Press.

Castelli, Laura. 2007. "Plato and Aristotle on Universals and Definition by Division." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:21–35.

Caston, Victor. 1999. "Something and Nothing: the Stoics on Concepts and Universals." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy no. 17:145–213.

Cesalli, Laurent. 2016. "Pseudo-Richard of Campsall and Richard Brinkley on Universals." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 225–240. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Cesalli, Laurent, de Libera, Alain, and Goubier, Frédéric. 2013. "Does Loving Every Mean Loving Every Every, Even Non-existent Ones? Distribution and Universals in the Opus puerorum." In Logic and Language in the Middle Ages: A Volume in Honour of Sten Ebbesen, edited by Fink, Jakob Leth, Hansen, Heine and Mora-Márquez, Ana María, 305–336. Leiden: Brill.

Chiaradonna, Riccardo. 2007. "Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonimous Predication." Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale no. 18:123–140.

———. 2013. "Alexander, Boethus and the Other Peripatetics. The Theory of Universals in the Aristotelian Commentators." In Universals in Ancient Philosophy, edited by Chiaradonna, Riccardo and Galluzzo, Gabriele, 299–328. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Chiaradonna, Riccardo, and Galluzzo, Gabriele, eds. 2013. Universals in Ancient Philosophy. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Contents: Riccardo Chiaradonna, Gabriele Galluzzo: Introduction 1; Mauro Bonazzi: Universals before Universals: Some Remarks on Plato in His Context 23; Francesco Ademollo: Plato's Conception of the Forms: Some Remarks 41; Marwan Rashed: Plato's Five Worlds Hypothesis (Ti. 55cd), Mathematics and Universals 87; David Sedley: Plato and the One-over-Many Principle 113; Laura M. Castelli : Universals, Particulars and Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Forms 139; Mauro Mariani: Universals in Aristotle's Logical Works 185; Gabriele Galluzzo: Universals in Aristotle's Metaphysics 209; Ada Bronowski: Epicureans and Stoics on Universals 255; Riccardo Chiaradonna: Alexander, Boethus and the Other Peripatetics: The Theory of Universals in the Aristotelian Commentators 299; Peter Adamson: One of a Kind: Plotinus and Porphyry on Unique Instantiation 329; Michael Griffin: Universals, Education, and Philosophical Methodology in Later Neoplatonism 353; Riccardo Chiaradonna: Universals in Ancient Medicine 381; Johannes Zachhuber: Universals in the Greek Church Fathers 425; Bibliography 471; Index locorum 509; Index of names 537-545.

Conti, Alessandro D. 1983. "A Short Scotist Handbook on Universals: The 'Compendium super quinque universalia' of William Russell, O.F.M." Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin no. 44:39–60.

———. 2007. "Opinions on Universals and Predication in Late Middle Ages: Sharpe's and Paul of Venice's Theories Compared." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:483–500.

———. 2008. "Categories and Universals in the Later Middle Ages." In Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories, edited by Newton, Lloyd A., 369–410. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2009. "Ockham and Burley on Categories and Universals: A Comparison." The Modern Schoolman no. 86:181–210.

———. 2010. "Realism." In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Volume 2, edited by Pasnau, Robert and Van Dyke, Christina, 647–660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Case Study: the Theory of Universals, pp. 43-49.

———. 2016. "The English Way to Realism: from Burley to Paul of Venice via the Oxford School." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 37–64. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Cory, Therese Scarpelli. 2018. "Embodied vs. non-embodied modes of knowing in Aquinas, Different universals, different intelligible species, different intellects." Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers no. 35:417–446.

Abstract: "What does it mean to be an embodied thinker of abstract concepts? Does embodiment shape the character and quality of our understanding of universals such as “dog” and “beauty,” and would a non-embodied mind understand such concepts differently? I examine these questions through the lens of Thomas Aquinas’s remarks on the differences between embodied (human) intellects and non-embodied (angelic) intellects. In Aquinas, I argue, the difference between embodied and non-embodied intellection of extramental realities is rooted in the fact that embodied and non-embodied intellects grasp different kinds of universals by means of different kinds of intelligible species (intellectual likenesses), which elicit in them different “modes” of understanding. By spelling out what exactly it means to be an embodied knower, on Aquinas’s account, I argue, we can also shed new light on his mysterious claim that the embodied intellect “turns to phantasms”—the imagination’s likenesses of individuals—in its acts of understanding."

Costa, Damiano. 2021. "An argument against Aristotelian universals." Synthese no. 198:4331–4338.

Abstract: "I provide an argument against the Aristotelian view of universals, according to which universals depend for their existence on their exemplifiers. The argument consists in a set of five jointly inconsistent assumptions. As such, the argument can be used to argue in favour of other conclusions, such as that exemplification is no relation or that plausible principles concerning ontological dependence or grounding do not hold."

Costa, Damiano, and Giordani, Alessandro. 2024. "Aristotelian universals, strong immanence, and construction." Synthese no. 203.

Abstract: "The Aristotelian view of universals, according to which each universal generically depends for its existence on its instantiations, has recently come under attack by a series of ground-theoretic arguments. The last such arguments, presented by Raven, promises to offer several significant improvements over its predecessors, such as avoiding commitment to the transitivity of ground and offering new reasons for the metaphysical priority of universals over their instantiations. In this paper, we argue that Raven’s argument does not effectively avoid said commitment and that Raven’s new reasons fail. Moreover, we present a novel ground-theoretic interpretation of the Aristotelian view, referred to as strong immanence, and introduce a new argument against the Aristotelian view, intended to sidestep any commitment to the transitivity of ground."

References

Raven, M. (2022). A problem for immanent universals in states of affairs. American Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 1–9.

Côté, Antoine. 2014. "Siger, Avicenna, and Albert the Great on Universals and Natures." Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter no. 17:99–122.

———. 2017. "James of Viterbo on Universals." In The Language of Thought in Late Medieval Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Claude Panaccio, edited by Pellletier, Jenny E. and Roques, Magali, 303–314. Cham (Switzerland): Springer.

Abstract: "The chapter starts out with a brief discussion of the similarity alleged to exist by the editors of William Ockham’s Ordinatio between a series of opinions canvassed by Ockham on the nature of universals and a series of opinions listed by James of Viterbo on the nature of concepts. It then proceeds to expound James’s little known theory of concepts and universals, and concludes that, despite interesting parallels between his views and those of the Veneralibilis Inceptor, James’s theory is still very much committed to the realist assumptions that Ockham thought metaphysics needed to dispense with."

Courtenay, William J. 1972. "Nominalism and Late Medieval Thought: A Bibliographical Essay." Theological Studies no. 33:716–734.

Reprinted as Essay 12 in: W. J. Courtenay, Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought. Studies in Philosophy, Theology and Economic Practice, London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.

———. 1983. "Late Medieval Nominalism Revisited: 1972-1982." Journal of the History of Ideas no. 44:159–164.

Reprinted as Essay 13 in: W. J. Courtenay, Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought. Studies in Philosophy, Theology and Economic Practice, London: Variorum Reprints 1984.

———. 1991. "In search of Nominalism: Two Centuries of Historical Debate." In Gli studi di filosofia medievale tra Otto e Novecento: contributi a un bilancio storiografico. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 21-23 settembre 1989, edited by Maierù, Alfonso and Imbach, Ruedi, 214–233. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

Reprinted as Chapter One in: W. J. Courtenay, Ockham and Ockhamism. Studies in the Dissemination and Impact of His Thought, Leiden: Brilll 2008, pp. 1-19.

———. 1991. "Nominales and Nominalism in the Twelfth Century." In Lectionum varietates. Hommage à Paul Vignaux (1904-1987), edited by Jolivet, Jean, Kaluza , Zénon and Libera, Alain de, 11–48. Paris: Vrin.

Reprinted as Chapter Four in: W. J. Courtenay, Ockham and Ockhamism. Studies in the Dissemination and Impact of His Thought, Leiden, Brilll, 2008, pp. 39-80.

Cresswell, Max J. 1975. "What is Aristotle's theory of universals?" Australasian Journal of Philosophy no. 53:238–247.

"Aristotle's theory of universals is expounded by contrast with Plato's. Where Plato had said that X is F iff X participates in the form of F, Aristotle has two analyses. If F is a substance predicate then X is F iff X is specifically identical with an F. If F is an accidental predicate then X is F iff there is a Y in X which is specifically identical with an individual in the appropriate category for F."

Crivelli, Paolo. 2007. "The Stoics on Definitions and Universals." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:89–122.

Cross, Richard. 2002. " Gregory of Nyssa on Universals." Vigiliae Christianae no. 56:372–410.

———. 2007. "Aristotelian substance and supposits: relations, universals, and the abuse of Tropes." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society.Supplementary Volume no. 79:53–72.

" Scotus's belief that any created substance can depend on the divine essence and/or divine persons as a subject requires him to abandon the plausible Aristotelian principle that there is no merely relational change. I argue that Scotus's various counterexamples to the principle can be rebutted. For reasons related to those that arise in Scotus's ailed attempt to refute the principle, the principle also entails that properties cannot be universals."

———. 2012. "Form and Universal in Boethius." British Journal for the History of Philosophy no. 20:439–458.

Abstract: "Contrary to the claims of recent commentators, I argue that Boethius holds a modified version of the Ammonian three-fold universal (transcendent, immanent, and conceptual). He probably identifies transcendent universals as divine ideas, and accepts too forms immanent in corporeal particulars, most likely construing these along the Aphrodisian lines that he hints at in a well-known passage from his second commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge. Boethius never states the theory of the three-fold form outright, but I attempt to show that this theory nevertheless underlies and gives structure to what Boethius has to say on the topic."

Crowley, Theodore. 1952. "Roger Bacon: the problem of universals in his philosophical commentaries." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library no. 34:264–275.

Dahlstrom, Daniel. 1980. "Signification and logic: Scotus on universals from a logical point of view." Vivarium no. 18:81–111.

de Carvalho, Mario Santiago. 2007. "The Coimbra Jesuits' Doctrine on Universals (1577-1606)." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:531–543.

de Waal, Cornelis. 2010. "The history of philosophy conceived as a struggle between nominalism and realism." Semiotica no. 179:295–313.

Abstract. "In this article I trace some of the main tenets of the struggle between nominalism and realism as identified by John Deely in his Four ages of understanding.

The aim is to assess Deely’s claim that the Age of Modernity was nominalist and that the coming age, the Age of Postmodernism — which he portrays as a renaissance of the late middle ages and as starting with Peirce — is realist. After a general overview of how Peirce interpreted the nominalist-realist controversy, Deely gives special attention to Thomas Aquinas’s On being and essence and the realism it entails. A subsequent discussion of the Modern Period shows that the issue of nominalism and realism is very much tied up with di¤erent conceptions of the intellect. Deely credits the theory of evolution with bringing us a conception of the intellect that is closer to that of the Middle Ages and that opens the way for a truly realistic ‘‘fourth age’’ of the understanding."

Deely, John N. 2001. Four Ages of Understanding: The First Postmodern Survey of Philosophy from Ancient Times to the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Contents at a Glance: Contents in detail XI; List of tables and illustrations XXIV; Preface: The boundary of time XXIX-XXXIII; 1. Society and civilization: the prelude to philosophy 3;

Part I. ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY: The discovery of "reality"

2. Philosophy as physics 17; 3. The Golden Age: philosophy expands its horizon 42; 4. The final Greek centuries and the overlap of Neoplatonism with Christianity 93;

Part II. THE LATIN AGE: philosophy of Being

5. The geography of the Latin Age 161; 6. The so-called Dark Ages 212; 7. Creating a wave: the Second Stage 251; 8. The fate of Sign in the Later Latin Age 364; 9. Three Outcomes, two destinies 411; 10. The road not taken 447;

Part III. THE MODERN PERIOD: The way of ideas

11. Beyond the Latin Umwelt: science comes of age 487; 12. The Founding Fathers: René Descartes and John Locke 511; 13. Synthesis and successors: The strange case of dr. Jekyll and mr. Hyde 540; 14. Locke again: the scheme of human knowledge 590;

Part IV: POSTMODERN TIMES: The way of Signs

15. Charles sanders Peirce and the recovery of Signum 611; 16. Semiology: modernity's attempt to treat the Sign 669; 17. At the Turn of the Twenty-first century 689; 18. Beyond Realism and Idealism: resumé and envoi 735;

Historically layered references 743; Gloss on the references 835; Index 837; Timetable of figures 1015-1019.

"If there is one notion that is central to the emerging postmodern consciousness, that notion is the notion of sign. And for understanding this notion, nothing is more essential than a new history of philosophy. For the notion of sign that has become the basis for a postmodern development of thought was unknown in the modern period, and before that traces back only as far as the turn of the 5th century AD. Yet the context within which the general notion of sign was first introduced presupposes both the ancient Greek notion of "natural sign" (semeion) and the framework of Greek discussions of nature and mind which provoked the development of philosophy in the first place as an attempt to understand the being proper to the objects of experience. Not only does it emerge that the sign is what every object presupposes, but, in modern philosophy, the conundrum about the reality of the "external world", the insolubility of the problem of how in theory to get beyond the privacy of the individual mind, springs directly from the reduction of signification to representation. So here is one of the ways in which the four ages of this book can be outlined: preliminaries to the notion of sign; the development of the notion itself; forgetfulness of the notion; recovery and advance of the notion.

Tracing the development of the notion of sign from its beginning and against the backdrop of Greek philosophy yields an unexpected benefit by comparison with more familiar historical approaches. Every modern history of philosophy has been essentially preoccupied with the separating off from philosophy of science in the modern sense, especially in and after the seventeenth century. From this point of view, many of the continuing philosophical developments of the later Latin centuries tend to drop out of sight. It has become the custom to present modern philosophy, conventionally beginning with Descartes (17th century), simply as part and parcel of the scientific break with the authors of Latin tradition, and to treat the bringing of nominalism into the foreground of Latin thought by William of Ockham (14th century) as if that were the finale of Latin development.

This hiatus of two and a half centuries in the history of philosophy, however, effectively disappears when we make our way from ancient to modern times by tracing mainly the development of the philosophical notion of signum. From the High Middle Ages down to the time of Descartes we find a lively and continuous discussion of sign which, through a series of important if unfamiliar controversies on both sides of the thirteenth century, leads to a basic split in the closing Latin centuries. On one side stand those who think that the general notion of sign is an empty name, a flatus vocis, a nominalism, no more than a "relation of reason", an ens rationis. On the other side are those who are able to ground the general notion in an understanding of relation as a unique, suprasubjective mode of being, a veritable dual citizen of the order of ens reale and ens rationis alike, according to shifting circumstances.

Modern philosophy, from this point of view, appears essentially as an exploration of the nominalist alternative; and postmodern thought begins with the acknowledgment of the bankruptcy of the modern effort, combined with the determination pioneered by C. S. Peirce to explore the alternative, "the road not taken", the "second destiny" that had been identified in the closing Latin centuries but forgotten thereafter. Peirce's postmodern resumption of premodern epistemological themes produces a number of immediately dramatic and surprising results (beginning with the cure for the pathology dividing our intellectual culture between the personae of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).

So derives the title for this work, Four Ages of Understanding: ancient Greek thought, the Latin Age, modern thought, postmodern thought. The book is a survey of philosophy in what is relevant to the "understanding of understanding" from ancient times to the present. It is intended both as a reference work in the history of philosophy and a guide to future research - a "handbook for inquirers" in history, philosophy, and the humanities generally, including historians and philosophers of science. The book also aims to aid in the classroom those professors willing to wean a new generation from the "standard modern outlines" of philosophy's history which serve mainly to support the post-Cartesian supposition that history is of next to no import for the doing itself of philosophy." (pp. XXX-XXXI)

Devereux, Daniel. 1998. "Aristotle's "Categories" 3b 10-21: A reply to Sharma." Ancient Philosophy no. 18:341–352.

Di Bella, Stefano. 2017. "Some Perspectives on Leibniz’s Nominalism and Its Sources." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 198–219. New York: Oxford University Press.

Di Bella, Stefano, and Schmaltz, Tad M., eds. 2017. The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2017. "Introduction to Universals in Modern Philosophy." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 1–12. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dijs, Judith. 1990. "Two Anonymous 12th-century Tracts on Universals." Vivarium no. 28:85–117.

Duncan, Stewart. 2017. "Hobbes, Universal Names, and Nominalism." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 41. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ebbesen, Sten. 1986. "The Chimera's Diary. Edited by Sten Ebbesen." In The Logic of Being, edited by Knuuttila, Simo and Hintikka, Jaakko, 115–143. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Ehrig-Eggert, Carl. 2008. "Yahya ibn 'Adi on Universals and the Intellect." In In the Age of al-Farabi: Arabic Philosophy in the Fourth/Tenth Century, edited by Adamson, Peter. Torino: Nino Aragno Editore.

Erismann, Christophe. 2007. "Immanent realism. A reconstruction of an early medieval solution to the problem of universals." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:211–229.

———. 2008. "The Trinity, Universals, and Paricular Substances: Philoponus and Roscelin." Traditio no. 53:277–305.

———. 2011. "Non Est Natura Sine Persona. The Issue of Uninstantiated Universals from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages." In Methods and Methodologies. Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500-1500, edited by Cameron, Margaret and Marenbon, John, 75–91. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2017. "Theodore the Studite and Photius on the Humanity of Christ: A Neglected Byzantine Discussion on Universals in the Time of Iconoclasm." Dumbarton Oaks Papers no. 71:175–192.

———. 2019. "A Logician for East and West: Maximus the Confessor on Universals." In A Saint for East and West: Maximus the Confessors Contribution to Eastern and Western Christian Theology, edited by Haynes, Daniel. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.

Fisher, A. R. J. 2025. The Metaphysics of Donald C. Williams. Cham (Switzerland): Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter 5: Universals and Their Nature, pp. 139-171.

Fortier, Simon. 2012. "Ammonius on Universals and Abstraction: An interpretation and Translation of Ammonius’ In Porphyrii Isagogen 39, 8-42, 16." Laval théologique et philosophique no. 68:21–33.

"Ammonius’ is the earliest exegesis we possess of Porphyry’s Isagoge, as is his interpretation of lines 1.9-12, over which so much ink was subsequently spilt. Although the essence of this interpretation, the so-called doctrine of the three states of the universal, is now widely known, the section of commentary in which it appears has hitherto never been translated in its entirety. The following article therefore presents a complete translation of Ammonius’ commentary upon Isagoge 1.9-12, preceded by a brief introduction."

Galluzzo, Gabriele. 2004. "Aquinas on Common Nature and Universals." Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales no. 71:131–171.

———. 2008. "The Problem of Universals and Its History. Some General Considerations." Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale no. 19:335–369.

García-Encinas, María José. 2005. "Medieval Concepts and the Problem of Universals." In Facets of Concepts, edited by Acero, Juan José, 17–34. Padova: Il Poligrafo.

Gersh, Stephen. 2021. "Universals, Wholes, Logoi: Eustratios of Nicaea’s Response to Proclus’Elements of Theology." In Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes: Volume 2. Translations and Acculturations, edited by Calma, Dragos, 32–53. Leiden: Brill.

Gerson, Lloyd P. 2004. "Platonism and the Invention of the Problem of Universals." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie no. 86:233–256.

"In this paper, I explore the origins of the 'problem of universals'. I argue that the problem has come to be badly formulated and that consideration of it has been impeded by falsely supposing that Platonic Forms were ever intended as an alternative to Aristotelian universals. In fact, the role that Forms are supposed by Plato to fulfill is independent of the function of a universal. I briefly consider the gradual mutation of the problem in the Academy, in Alexander of Aphrodisias, and among some of the major Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, including Porphyry and Boethius."

Gill, Mary Louise. 2001. "Aristotle's attack on universals." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy no. 20:235–260.

Abstract: "Metaphysics Z 13 is a widely disputed text but fundamental for understanding Aristotle’s theory of substance. Here he argues, both in his own voice and against the Platonists, that no universal is substance. The chapter is problematic because Aristotle’s objections to the universal appear to tell against his own favoured candidate, substantial form, as well. Earlier in Z, in the section on essence, he argued that form is substance. That section appeared to treat form as a universal.’ But if form is a universal, then the arguments m Z 13 that no universal is substance defeat substantial form as well."

Giordani, Alessandro, and Tremolanti, Eric. 2022. "In defense of Aristotelian universals." Synthese no. 200:1–18.

Abstract: "To be an Aristotelian about universals is to hold that universals depend for their existence on their exemplifiers. An argument against Aristotelianism about universals has recently been put forward by Costa to the effect that a contradiction follows from assuming a certain formulation of Aristotelianism together with some highly plausible principles governing the notions employed in that formulation. In this paper, we provide different ways of articulating the Aristotelian position which, while being

related with some of the main contributions in the current Aristotelian tradition, do not fall prey to the argument."

References

Costa, Damiano (2021). An argument against Aristotelian universals. Synthese, first online, 1–8.

Girard, Charles. 2016. "Universals in Gregory of Rimini's Sentences Commentary." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 241–266. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Goeglein, Tamara A. 1995. "The Problem of Monsters and Universals in "The Owl and the Nightingale" and John of Salisbury's Metalogicon." The Journal of English and Germanic Philology no. 94:190–206.

Goldie, Matthew Boyd. 2012. "Neurobiological alphabets: Language origins and the problem of universals." Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies no. 3:272–289.

Abstract: "A comparison among neuroscientists on reading, medieval discussions about ancient and foreign alphabets, and modern scholarly interpretations of those discussions provides a lens on two topics: the origins of human languages and the universality of alphabets. Priscian, Isidore of Seville, and others turn away from theological accounts of the origins of language and posit instead that phonemes and

graphemes in part imitate sounds and objects in the world. Rabanus Maurus, Giovanni Boccaccio, Sir John Mandeville, and others state that different languages’ graphemes – and by extension the languages and the cultures that use them – are scarcely, if at all, able to be equated. Neuroscience goes much further with both ideas, emphasizing universals and stronger cross-linguistic parallels."

Gonzalez-Ayesta, Cruz, and Gonzalez-Ginocchio, David. 2015. "Logic, Ontology, and the Psychology of Universals in Duns Scotus." Proceedings of the Society for Medieval Logic and Metaphysics no. 12:101–131.

Gracia, Jorge J. E. 1994. "Cutting the Gordian knot of ontology: Thomas's solution to the problem of universals." In Thomas Aquinas and his Legacy, edited by Gallagher, David M., 16–36. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Gracía, Jorge J. E. 1999. "Metaphysical, epistemological and linguistic approaches to universals: Porphyry, Boethius, and Abailard." In Medieval Masters: Essays in Memory of Msgr. E. A. Synan, edited by Houser, Rollen Edward, 1–24. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

Grygianiec, Mariusz. 2013. "Two approaches to the problem of universals by J. M. Bocheński." Studies in East European Thought no. 65:27–42.

Abstract: "The main aim of the paper is to reconstruct and analyse two methodological approaches to the problem of universals, presented in Bocheński’s papers ‘‘Powszechniki jako treści cech w filozofii św. Tomasza z Akwinu’’ and ‘‘The Problem of Universals.’’ It is argued that, although these approaches are rather different from historical and methodological points of view, they are still based on the same ontological ground, viz. on immanent realism. The article provides a detailed analysis and comparison of the respective views. Justification is provided for the claim that Bocheński was an immanent realist and some of Bocheński’s detailed solutions are highlighted that may be of particular importance for further debate over the problem of universals. A couple of minor critical comments concerning some of Bocheński’s analyses are presented at the end of the paper."

References

Bocheński, J. M. (1938). Powszechniki jako tres´ci cech w filozofii s´w. Tomasza z Akwinu (Universals as the contents of properties in the philosophy of St. Thomas Acquinas). Przeglàd filozoficzny, 41, 136–149.

Bocheński, J. M. (1956). The problem of universals. In J. M. Bochen´ski, A. Church, & N. Goodman (Eds.), The problem of universals (pp. 33–54). Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press.

Guigon, Ghislain, and Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo, eds. 2015. Nominalism about Properties: New Essays. New York: Routledge.

Hause, Jeffrey. 2014. " Scotus and Ockham: A Debate over Universals and Individuation." In Debates in Medieval Philosophy: Essential Readings and Contemporary Responses edited by Hause, Jeffrey, 367–370. New York: Routledge.

Hawthorne, John. 2016. " Scotus on Universals." Oxford studies in medieval philosophy no. 4:64–77.

Heider, Daniel. 2011. "The Role of Trinitarian Theology in Universals: Bartolomeo Mastri da Meldola (1602-1673) and Bonaventura Belluto (1600-1676)." In Herausforderung durch Religion? Begegnungen der Philosophie mit Religionen in Mittelalter und Renaissance, edited by Krieger, G, 268–284. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.

———. 2014. Universals in Second Scholasticism: A Comparative Study with Focus on the Theories of Francisco Suárez S.J. (1548-1617), Joao Poinsot O.P. (1589-1644), and Bartolomeo Mastri da Meldola O.F.M. Conv. (1602-1673), Bonaventura Belluto O.F.M. Conv. (1600-1676). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

"This study aims to present a comparative analysis of philosophical theories of universals espoused by the foremost representatives of the three main schools of early modern scholastic thought. The book introduces the doctrines of Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617), the Thomist John of St. Thomas, O.P. (1589-1644), and the Scotists Bartolomeo Mastri da Meldola, O.F.M. Conv. (1602-1673) and Bonaventura Belluto, O.F.M. Conv. (1600-1676). The author examines in detail their mutual doctrinal delineation as well as the conceptualist tenet of the Jesuit Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza (1578-1641), whose thought constitutes an important systematic point of comparison especially with Suarez's doctrine. The book offers the first comparative elaboration of the issue of universals, in both its metaphysical and its epistemological aspects, in the era of second scholasticism."

Helmig, Christoph. 2008. "Proclus and other Neoplatonists on Universals and Predication." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 19:31–52.

Hendley, Brian. 1970. "John of Salisbury and the Problem of Universals." Journal of the History of Philosophy no. 8:289–302.

Henninger, Mark. 2007. "Henry of Harclay on Universals." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:411–452.

Henry, Desmond Paul. 1986. "Universals and Particulars." History and Philosophy of Logic no. 7:177–183.

Abstract: "The medieval version of the Problem of Universals centers around propositions such as '"man" is a species' and '"animals" is a genus'. One of C. Lejewski's analyses of such propositions shows that semantic status of their terms by means of Ajdukiewicz-style categorical indices having participial or infinitive forms as their natural-language counterparts. Some medievals certainly used such forms in their corresponding analyses, thus avoiding the alleged referential demands generated by nominally-termed propositions. Boethius exemplifies the confusion which may still arise from the traditional definition of "universal" in terms of predication "of many". Unnecessary adherence to nominally-termed analyses not only grounded a tendency towards Nominalism and Platonism, but also towards the moderns' 'way of ideas'."

Hull, Gordon. 2006. "Hobbes's radical nominalism." Epoché.A Journal for the History of Philosophy no. 11:201–223.

Abstract: "This paper analyzes Hobbes's understanding of signification, the process whereby words come to have meaning. Most generally, Hobbes develops and extends the nominalist critique of universals as it is found in Ockham and subsequently carried forward by early moderns such as Descartes. Hobbes's radicality emerges in comparison with Ockham and Descartes, as, unlike them, Hobbes also reduces the intellectual faculty entirely to imagination. According to Hobbes, we have nothing in which a stabilizing, prediscursive mental language could inhere.

Hobbes thus concludes that all thinking is affective and semiotic, and depends on the regulation of conventionally established regimes of signs. Establishing this regulation is one of the central functions of the Hobbesian commonwealth."

Ierodiakonou, Katerina. 2005. "Metaphysics in the Byzantine Tradition: Eustratios of Nicaea on Universals." Quaestio. Journal of the History of Metaphysics no. 5:67–82.

———. 2007. "John Italos on Universals." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:231–247.

———. 2010. "Byzantium." In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Volume 1, edited by Pasnau, Robert, 39–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Case Study: the Theory of Universals, pp. 43-49.

Imaguire, Diego. 2021. "On the Coherence of Aristotelian Universals." Synthese no. 199:7255–7263.

Abstract: "The current interest in the notions of ontological dependence and metaphysical grounding is usually associated with a renewal of interest in Aristotelian metaphysics.

Curiously, some authors have recently argued that the Aristotelian view of universals, according to which universals depend for their existence on their exemplifiers, is incoherent from a grounding perspective. In this paper I argue that such criticism is misleading. I shall examine their arguments and clarify the supposed incoherence."

Iwakuma, Yukio. 1992. "‘Vocales’ or early nominalists." Traditio no. 47:37–111.

———. 1992. "Twelfth-Century Nominales. The Posthumous School of Peter Abelard." Vivarium no. 30:97–109.

Iwakuma, Yukio, and Ebbesen, Sten. 1992. "Twelfth-Century Nominalism Bibliography." Vivarium no. 30:211–215.

Karger, Elizabeth. 1999. "Walter Burley's realism." Vivarium no. 37:24–40.

Khatchadourian, Haig. 1986. "Universals in David, Boethius, and al-Farabi's 47 Summary of Porphyry's Isagoge." In David Anhaght: The 'Invincible' Philosopher, edited by Sanjan, Avedis K., 47–63. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

King, Peter. 1982. Peter Abailard and the Problem of Universals in the Twelfth Century, Princeton University.

Available at ProQuest Dissertation Express. Order number: 8220415.

———. 2001. "John Buridan's Solution to the Problem of Universals." In The Metaphysics and Natural Philosophy of John Buridan, edited by Thijssen, Johannes M.M.H. and Zupko, Jack, 29–48. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2009. "Abelard's Answers to Porphyry." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 18:249–270.

Klima, Gyula. 2003. "Natures: The Problem of Universals." In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy, edited by McGrade, Arthur Stephen, 196–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

"Aristotelian science seeks to define the essential nature of a thing and then to demonstrate the features the thing must have because of that nature. A philosophically inevitable question thus arises for Aristotelians: what is a nature? Is it a reality over and above (or perhaps "in" the things whose nature it is? Is it a mental construction, existing only in our understanding of things, if so, on what basis is it constructed? This is the medieval problem of universals, or at least one way of thinking about the problem. In a classic formulation, Boethius states the problem in terms of the reality of genera and species, two main types of universals involved in an Aristotelian definition of essential nature (as in "a human being is a reasoning / speaking animal," which places us in the genus of animals and marks off our species by reference to our "difference" from other animals in reasoning or using language): "Plato thinks that genera and species and the rest are not only understood as universals, but also exist and subsist apart from bodies. Aristotle, however, thinks that they are understood as incorporeal and universal, but subsist in sensibles."' A rigorous tradition of, mainly Aristotelian, discussion originates from Boethius's tentative exploration of the problem thus stated. But a more Platonic solution had been put into play about a century before Boethius by Augustine, and this, too, would have a rich development."

———. 2016. "Intentionality and Mental Content in Aquinas, Ockham, and Buridan." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 65–88. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Kluge, Eike-Henner W. 1976. "Roscelin and the Medieval Problem of Universals." Journal of the History of Philosophy:405–414.

Kneepkens, Corneille Henri. 1992. "Nominalism and grammatical theory in the late Eleventh and early Twelfth centuries. An explorative study." Vivarium no. 30:34–50.

Knuutila, Simo. 2018. "The Thirteenth-Century Aristotelian Psychology of Universals." In Sujet libre: pour Alain de Libera, edited by Brenet, Jean-Baptiste and Cesalli, Laurent 189–196. Paris: Vrin.

Koterski, Joseph W. 2008. Medieval Philosophy: Basic Concepts. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Chapter 4: The Problem of Universals, pp.

Lafleur, Claude, Piché, David, and Carrier, Joanne. 2014. "The Questiones circa litteram de uniuersalibus and Expositio littere secunde partis prohemii of the Commentary on the Isagoge Attributed (?) to John Pagus (I. Introduction and Doctrinal Study): The Ontological Status of Universals." Mediaeval Studies no. 76:149.168.

Lahey, Stephen. 1998. "William Ockham and Trope Nominalism." Franciscan Studies no. 56:105–120.

"William Ockham's ontology as outlined in Summa Logicae and elsewhere is sufficiently like the trope nominalism described in D.M. Armstrong's Universals: An Opinionated Introduction to warrant the attention of contemporary metaphysicians, so long as one bears in mind (a) Ockham's fundamentally theological presuppositions, and (b) his Aristotelian logic and philosophy of language."

Laird, Edgar S. 2012. "Grosseteste, Wyclif, and Chaucer on Universals." In Robert Grosseteste. His Thought and Its Impact, edited by Cunningham, Jack P., 217–226.

Landini, Gregory. 1991. "The persistence of counterexample: re-examining the debate over Leibniz Law." Nous no. 25:43–61.

Leeds, John C. 2018. "Universals, Particulars, and Political Discourse in John Mair’s Historia Maioris Britanniae." In The Impact of Latin Culture on Medieval and Early Modern Scottish Writing, edited by Petrina, Alessandra and Johnson, Ian, 85–103. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.

Lesher, James H. 1971. "Aristotle on Form, Substance, and Universals: A Dilemma." Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy no. 16:169–178.

Libera, Alain de. 1982. "The Oxford and Paris Traditions in Logic." In The Cambridge History of Later Mediaeval Philosophy, edited by Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony P. and Pinborg, Jan, 174–187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lolordo, Antonia. 2017. "Gassendi on the Problem of Universals." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 13–40. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lotti, Brunello. 2017. "Universals in English Platonism: More, Cudworth, Norris." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 166–197. New York: Oxford University Press.

Loux, Michael J. 2007. "Perspectives on the Problem of Universals." Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale no. 18:601–622.

Lowe, E. J. . 2017. "Locke on General Ideas." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 252–266. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lowe, Michael J. 2007. "Immanent Universals." Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale no. 18:623–636.

Mackey, Louis. 1979. "Singular and Universal: a Franciscan perspective." Franciscan Studies no. 39:130–164.

Maloney, Christopher J. 1982. "Abailard's Theory of Universals." Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic no. 23:27–38.

Marciszewski, Witold. 1991. "Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz and the Polish debate on Universals." Quaderni del Centro per la Filosofia Mitteleuropea no. 3:7–16.

Marenbon, John. 2008. "Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century " In Handbook of the History of Logic. Vol. 2. Mediaeval and Renaissance Logic, edited by Gabbay, Dov M. and Woods, John, 65–81. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

"This chapter is not, like the others in the book, a survey of the logical doctrines of a period, because I at least (and perhaps other scholars too) am not yet in a position to write such a survey. It is simply a guide to the material, to the technical problems it presents and some of the theories historians have elaborated about it, along with an indication of a few of the philosophical themes which are waiting to be explored. ‘The turn of the twelfth century’ is a deliberately vague title, designed to indicate the hole between where the previous chapter finished and Abelard’s work, the subject of the following chapter. But plugging this gap—even as here, with a sponge and a nailbrush — is not a straightforwardly chronological matter. Abelard’s Dialectica, the main subject of the next chapter, may have been being written as early as 1110: a good deal of what is discussed here was probably written no earlier, and some of the texts may in fact date from the 1120s or 1130s.

But the writings and writers discussed here have at least traditionally been seen as providing the prelude to Abelard’s work. They form a separate group in their methods and concerns from the writings of Abelard’s contemporaries and the later twelfth-century schools considered in the final section of the next chapter." (p. 65, a note omitted)

———. 2011. "Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Century: a synthesis." In Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des XIe et XIIe siècles: textes, maîtres, débats, edited by Rosier-Catach, Irène, 181–218. Turnhout: Brepols.

———. 2015. "Abelard’s Theory of Universals." In Nominalism about Properties: New Essays, edited by Guigon, Ghislain and Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo, 39–62. New York: Routledge.

———. 2021. "«Nec res ita sicut vocabula diversas esse contingit». Abelard on Real Relations – and Real Universals." In Ad placitum. Pour Irène Rosier-Catach, edited by Cesalli, Laurent, Grondeux, Anne, Robert, Aurélien and Valente, Luisa, 465–470. Roma: Aracne editrice.

Martin, Christopher. 1983. "The Compendium logicae Porretanum: a survey of philosophical logic from the School of Gilbert of Poitiers." Cahiers del l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin no. 46:XVIII–XLVI.

Matsen, Herbert S. 1974. Alessandro Achillini (1463-1512) and His Doctrine of ‘Universals' and ‘Transcendentals'. A Study in Renaissance Ockhamism. London: Bucknell University Press.

Matteo, Anthony M. 1985. "Scotus and Ockham: A Dialogue on Universals." Franciscan Studies no. 45:83–96.

McInerny, Ralph. 1980. "Albert on Universals." In Albert the Great: Commemorative Essays, edited by Kovach, Francis J. and Shahan, Robert W., 3–18. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Reprinted in R. McxInerny, Being and Predication: Thomistic Interpretations, Washington, D..C:_ The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 115-129.

McTighe, T. P. . 1977. "Boethius on universals: a reconsideration." In Proceedings of the Patristic, Mediaeval, and Renaissance Congress. Vol. 2, 113–121. Villanova: Villanova University.

Meliadò, Mario. 2012. "Scientia perpateticorum: Heymerus de Campo, the 'Book of Causes' and the debate over universals in the Fifteenth century." Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales no. 79:195–230.

Abstract: "The fifteenth-century debate between Albertists and Thomists centered on the elaboration of two alternative models of Peripatetic science, within which the question of universals took on an architectonic function. The present article analyzes the anti-Thomistic position of the Albertist Heymericus de Campo (d. 1460) and aims to reconstruct the sources as well as the metaphysical assumptions lying behind it. The article shows that the major differences with the rival school originated in Heymericus' having incorporated within the Peripatetic science the causal paradigm defined by the notion of fluxus. This notion was drawn by Heymericus from the pseudo-Aristotelian Liber de causis as interpreted by Albert. The Book of Causes not only provided Heymericus with the metaphysical foundation for solving the problem of universals, but also represented the main authority legitimizing the inclusion of the doctrine of the flux into the Aristotelian canon. An Appendix offers the edition of Heymericus'

short commentary on the Liber de causis, contained in his Questiones supra libros philosophie Aristotelis (Cod. Cus. 106, ff. 53v-54r)."

Mesaros, Claudiu. 2005/2006. "From Porphyry to Abelard: How Many Questions on Universals?" Chôra no. 3/4:253–262.

Michelet, Fabienne, and Pickavé, Martin. 2020. "Philosophy, Logic, and Nominalism." In The Oxford Handbook of Chaucer, edited by Akbari, Suzanne Conklin and Simpson, James, 407–425. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moody, Ernest A. 1965. "Buridan and a dilemma of nominalism." In Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. English Section - Vol. II, 577–596. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research.

Reprinted in E. A. Moody, Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic. Collected papers 1933-1969, Berkeley: University of California Press 1975, pp. 353-370.

Nakanishi, Yuki. 2018. "Post-Avicennian Controversy over the Problem of Universals: Saʿdaddı¯n at-Taftãzãnî (d. 1389/90) and Šamsaddīn al-Fanārĭ (d. 1431) on the Reality of Existence." In Islamic Philosophy from the 12th to the 14th Century, edited by Al Ghouz, Abdelkader, 357–374. Bonn: V&R unipress - Bonn University Press.

Nauta, Lodi. 2012. "From Universals to Topics: The Realism of Rudolph Agricola, with an Edition of his Reply to a Critic." Vuvarium no. 50:190–224.

Abstract: "Rudolph Agricola’s De inventione dialectica has rightly been regarded as the most original and influential textbook on argumentation, reading, writing, and communication in the Renaissance. At the heart of his treatment are the topics (loci), such as definition, genus, species, place, whole, parts, similars, and so on. While their function in Agricola’s system is argumentative and rhetorical, the roots of the topics are metaphysical, as Agricola himself explicitly acknowledges. It has led scholars to characterize

Agricola as a realist or even an extreme realist. This article studies two little treatises on universals by Agricola that throw further light on his realism. It is suggested that they could be viewed as an early step in his long-term project of revising and re-organizing the systems of topics as he encountered them in Aristotle, Cicero, and Boethius. The article offers a close analysis of the treatises, suggesting that Agricola’s realism owes a (general) debt to the school of the Scotists. In both earlier and later work Agricola emphasizes the common aspects of things that enable us to categorize and talk about things without denying their fundamental unicity and individuality. An edition of Agricola’s second treatise on universals—a reply to a critic—is added."

———. 2012. "Anti-Essentialism and the Rhetoricization of Knowledge: Mario Nizolio's Humanist Attackon Universals." Renaissance Quarterly no. 65:31–66.

Abstract: "Well-known for his Ciceronianism as well as for his crass nominalism and virulent attack on universals, the humanist Mario Nizolio (1488 –1567) is often considered to be a forerunner of early modern philosophy. But although his name duly features in general accounts of Renaissance humanism and philosophy, his work, edited by Leibniz in 1670, has hardly been the subject of a philosophically sensitive analysis. This article examines Nizolio’s attempt to reform scholastic philosophy, paying particular attention to the way in which he de-ontologized the scholastic categories and predicables (genus, species, etc.) and replaced philosophical abstraction with the rhetorical concept of synecdoche. His views on science, proof, argumentation, and rhetoric are

discussed, as well as the humanist inspiration from which they issue.We will then be able to evaluate the strength and limitations of Nizolio’s program in the wider tradition of early modern philosophy."

———. 2015. "De-essentializing the World: Valla, Agricola, Vives, and Nizolio on Universals and Topics." In Essays in Renaissance Thought and Letters: In Honor of John Monfasani, edited by Frazier, Alison and Nold, Patrick, 196–215. Leiden: Brill.

Neacsu, Adriana. 2010. ""The Quarrel of Universals" - Legacy of Antic Thinking and Expression of the Originality of Medievals." no. 54:5–15.

Abstract; "'The quarrel of the universals' expresses, in a synthetic way, a dispute which developed betweenthe philosophers, almost throughout the Middle Ages. It aimed at reports between the individualthings, of one part, and, so-called 'Universals', it is to say concepts which express, in principal,types and kinds of things. The author of the article introduces this dispute from the ancient origin,putting in an obvious place the positions of Plato, Aristotle and Stoics as regards reports betweenthings and their types. She underlines the role of Porphyry and Boethius for the start of 'quarrel'.Then, she introduces main lines of the answer during the Middle Ages, including the realism, thenominalism and conceptualism, as variant of the nominalism."

Negri, Silvia. 2012. "The traps of realism: the debate over universals in the fifteenth century and the Thomists of Cologne." Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales no. 79:231–265.

Abstract: "Fifteenth-century Thomists were deeply involved in the debate over the nature and mode of universals, which was at the core of the so-called Wegestreit in the late Middle Ages. Their solutions were intended to fill some theoretical gaps left by Thomas Aquinas, who, although he touched on the theme in his work, did not leave a systematic treatment of the topic. This paper investigates the opinions of the major Thomist masters of Cologne as found in their Commentaries on the De ente et essentia and in other sources. It aims to bring into focus the strategies by which those masters ‘canonized’ Aquinas’s doctrine, developing their own views in the process and differentiating them from the views of their institutional rivals."

Newlands, Samuel. 2017. "Spinoza on Universals." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 62–86. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nolan, Lawrence. 1997. "The ontological status of Cartesian natures." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly no. 78:169–194.

Abstract: "In the Fifth Meditation, Descartes makes a remarkable claim about the ontological status of geometrical figures. He asserts that an object such as a triangle has a 'true and immutable nature' that does not depend on the mind, yet has being even if there are no triangles existing in the world. This statement has led many commentators to assume that Descartes is a Platonist regarding essences and in the philosophy of mathematics. One problem with this seemingly natural reading is that it contradicts the conceptualist account of universals that one finds in the Principles of Philosophy and elsewhere. In this paper, I offer a novel interpretation of the notion of a true and immutable nature which reconciles the Fifth Meditation with the conceptualism of Descartes's other work. Specifically, I argue that Descartes takes natures to be innate ideas considered in terms of their so-called 'objective being'."

———. 1998. "Descartes' theory of Universals." Philosophical Studies.An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition no. 89:161–180.

"I argue that Descartes holds a conceptualist account of both the ontology and the origin of universals. Universal mathematical objects, such as the number two, are merely innate ideas that are made occurrent by a process of abstraction. Although Descartes's conceptualism is fairly explicit textually, the details of his theory are not. I recover this theory by linking it to his account of attributes--an attribute being something which we distinguish from a substance within our thought where there is no distinction in real.

This approach uncovers Descartes's diagnosis of how the realist goes wrong in positing universals outside thought."

———. 2017. "Descartes on Universal Essences and Divine Knowledge." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 87–116. New York: Oxford University Press.

Noone, Timothy B. 2003. "Universals and individuation." In The Cambridge companion to Duns Scotus, edited by Williams, Thomas, 100–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norena, Carlos P. 1981. "Ockham and Suarez on the ontological status of universal concepts." The New Scholasticism no. 55:348–362.

Normore , Calvin G. 1987. "The tradition of mediaeval nominalism." In Studies in Medieval Philosophy, edited by Wippel, John F., 201–217. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.

Paasch, J. T. 2014. "Scotus and Ockham on Universals and Individuation." In Debates in Medieval Philosophy: Essential Readings and Contemporary Responses edited by Hause, Jeffrey, 371–393. New York: Routledge.

Panaccio, Claude. 2009. "Medieval Metaphysics I: The Problem of Universals." In The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics, edited by Le Poidevin, Robin, 48–57. New York: Routledge.

———. 2012. "Universals." In The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy, edited by Marenbon, John, 385–402. New York: Oxford Univesitu Press.

Pannier, Russell, and Sullivan, Thomas D. 1994. "Aquinas's solution to the Problem of Universals in "De Ente et Essentia"." The American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly no. 68:159–172.

Pavlíček, Ota. 2011. "Two Philosophical Texts of Jerome of Prague and his Alleged Designation of Opponents of Real Universals as Diabolical Heretics." The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice no. 8:52–76.

———. 2018. "Jan Hus as a Philosopher:The topic of universals in two theological contexts of his Sentence Commentary (Super IV Sententiarum I, Dist. 19 and 33)." Przegląd Tomistyczny no. 24:547–568.

———. 2021. "Stephen of Páleč’s works on universals, with a critical edition of his question Utrum universale sit aliquid extra animam preter operacionem intellectus." Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge no. 88:287–336.

Abstract: "Stephen of Ailee (t c. 1422) was one of the first to advocate Wyclif's realism in the Arague Arts Faculty. This paper provides an overview of his works on universals, dating their origin to 1394-1396. In some cases, his purpose was probably to defend the realism of universals in general, not just that of Wyclif. The editio princeps of one of Stephen's quaestiones on universals is printed here. An analysis of this quaestio uncovers intriguing data on textual transmission, including the possible influence of an anonymous realist's position attacked by Buridan in the 1330s."

Pelletier, Jenny E. 2016. "William Ockham on Divine Ideas, Universals, and God's Power." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 187–224. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Pinborg, Jan. 1980. "Radulphus Brito on universals." Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin no. 35:56–142.

Pini, Giorgio. 2007. "Scotus on Universals: A Reconsideration." Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale no. 18:395–409.

Pinzani, Roberto. 2018. The Problem of Universals from Boethius to John of Salisbury. Leiden: Brill.

Priarolo, Mariangela. 2017. "Universals and Individuals in Malebranche's Philosophy." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 142–165. New York: Oxford University Press.

Resnick, Irven M. 1997. "Odo of Tournai, the Phoenix, and the Problem of Universals." Journal of the History of Philosophy no. 35:355–374.

Rijk, Lambertus Marie de. 1980. "The Semantical Impact of Abailard's Solution of the Problem of Universals." In Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142). Person, Werk und Wirkung, edited by Thomas , Rudolf, Jolivet, Jean, Luscombe , David and Rijk, Lambertus Marie de, 139–151. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag.

Reprinted as chapter III in: Through Language to Reality. Studies in Medieval Semantics and Metaphysics.

"It is most unfortunate that as late as in the second edition of his Theory of Universals Richard Aaron has based his rather unfavourable view on Peter Abailard's contribution to the solution of the problem of universals on the older work of our famous logician only, viz. the Logica Ingredientibus. As is known, the French Master's most mature solution is found in the Logica Nostrorum petitioni (LNP) (*).

In this work (LNP 522, 10 ff.) Abailard attributes the commonness of common nouns neither to extramental things nor to words (voces), rather he states that it is significant word (sermo), that is either singular or universal. He finds much support in Aristotle's definition of the universal: 'a universal is that which is by its nature predicated of a number of things.' (**) Abailard lays much stress on the nature of the formation of sermones, which to his mind is a human establishment (hominum institutio), unlike the formation of extramental things and that of words taken as articulated sounds, which are creations of nature. His solution is entirely focused on his explicit distinction between the material identity of vox and sermo as opposed to their formal diversity ('non-identity').

There is, he says, a clear formal distinction between 'being predicable of many,' or: 'predicability' and 'that which is predicable of many'. It is predicability that must belong to a vox for it to be a universal; just being something that is predicable of many is not enough.

Well, Abailard makes every effort to explain the formal difference between vox (word, i. e. articulated sound) and sermo (significant word), which should be put beside their material identity. The distinction is so important to him that we need not wonder that throughout the whole discussion Abailard makes use of his best weapon, his incomparable skill in the field of linguistic (or rather: semantic) analysis."

(*) Richard I. Aron, The theory of Universals, Oxford, 1967 (2nd ed.), p. 13. (...)

(**) De interpretatione 7, 17a 39-40.

———. 1992. "John Buridan on Universals." Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale no. 97:35–59.

"It is common knowledge that Plato strongly believed that, in order to explain the nature of whatever is (either things or states of affairs, including Man and his environment), the assumption of Transcendent Universal Forms is indispensable. In his view, these universal Forms are the ontic causes of each and every sublunary entity, which all owe their being to their sharing in these Forms. Consequently, everyone who is in want of firm knowledge (episteme) about, the things of the outside world is bound to direct his attention to the transcendent domain of the universal Forms'.

However, Plato was the first to recognise, and seriously deal with, the objections that can be raised to this doctrine. These objections mainly concern the status (and the dignity, however modest) of our transient world and, above all, the possibility to obtain, true knowledge of this world as it stands, in its ever-changing nature, that is." p. 35

(...)

"To be sure, the Medievals all rejected the Platonic Ideas taken as separate substances and they adhered to the Aristotelian common sense principle that only individuals have independent existence. Nevertheless, they were still under the spell of the status of «universal being» as the indispensable basis of true knowledge.

Marylin McCord Adams has analysed some early fourteenth century solutions to the problem of universals (Scotus, Ockham, Burley and Harclay) (*). In McCord's article Buridan's view of the matter is left out of consideration. Quite understandably so, since Buridan's solution to the problem differs considerably from the sophisticated arguments given by his contemporaries. Buridan seeks.for a solution in analysing the several ways of human understanding. In directing his attention to the propositional attitude involved in the cognitive procedure Buridan is remarkably close to the ingenious solution Peter Abelard had come up with two centuries earlier. In the next sections I shall give an outline of Abelard's treatment of the question of universals followed by an analysis of Buridan's discussion of the matter (as found in his commentary on the Metaphysics and elsewhere)." (p. 37)

(...)

"We may conclude, then, that two bright logicians of the Parisian tradition have come up with quite an ingenious solution to the problem of universals. Both of them started out from the firm conviction that nothing exists but particulars. Nevertheless, they apparently were not satisfied with purely extensional solutions as brought forward by Oxford logicians such as Heytesbury and Ockham. Maybe extensionalists are out to show how people ought to think. Abelard and Buridan, however, were especially interested in the various ways of conceiving we actually use in daily life, in our attempts to conceptually deal with the outside world." (p. 59)

(*) "Universals in the early Fourteenth century" in Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, from the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Desintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600 pp. 411-439.

Rŏde, Christian. 2016. "Peter Auriol on Universals and the Notion of Passive Conception." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 139–154. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Rubenstein, Eric M. 2002. "Nominalism and the disappearance of the Problem of Individuation." Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy no. 5:193–204.

"While the medievals spilled much ink over the 'problem of individuation', the moderns scarcely mention it. My aim here is to explore what philosophical reasons, as opposed to historical or sociological ones, might lie behind the disappearance of a philosophical problem that vexed minds for centuries. I argue that Ockham clearly saw that a commitment to nominalism removes the need to take seriously the problem of individuation. Suarez, who did take seriously the problem, but who also advocated nominalism, will be shown to be subject to important Ockham-inspired arguments. To the extent, then, that Ockham's nominalism carried the day into the moderns, it is understandable, philosophically, that the moderns should turn a deaf ear to the problem of individuation."

Rutten, Pepijn. 2003. "Contra occanicam discoliam modernorum: The So-Called De universali reali and the Dissemination of Albertist Polemics against the via moderna." Bulletin de philosophie médiévale no. 45:131–166.

Sacksteder, William. 1986. "Some words Aristotle never uses: attributes, essences, and universals." The New Scholasticism no. 60:427–453.

Scaltsas, Theodore. 1994. Substances and Universals in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Schmaltz, Tad M. 2017. "Platonism and Conceptualism among the Cartesians." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 117–141. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schoedinger, Andrew B., ed. 1992. The Problem of Universals. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

Sedley , David. 1985. "The Stoic theory of universals." Southern Journal of Philosophy no. 23:87–92.

Supplementary volume.

Sharma, Ravi K. 1997. "A new defense of Tropes? On "Categories" 3b10-18." Ancient Philosophy no. 17:309–315.

"Daniel Devereux has argued that "Categories" 3b10-18 provides evidence for the view that Aristotle's first-order accidents are tropes. However, the passage should be interpreted differently than as Devereux proposes and the proper interpretation is neutral as between a tropes-view and a universals-view."

Sharples, Robert. 2005. "Alexander of Aphrodisias on universals: two problematic texts." Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy no. 50:43–55.

Abstract: "Two texts that raise problems for Alexander of Aphrodisias' theory of universals are examined. De anima 90.2-8 appears to suggest that universals are dependent on thought for their existence; this raises questions about the status both of universals and of forms. It is suggested that the passage is best interpreted as indicating that universals are dependent on thought only for their being recognised as universals. The last sentence of Quaestio 1.11 seems to assert that if the universal did not exist no individual would exist, thereby contradicting Alexander's position elsewhere. This seems to be a slip resulting from the fact that species with only one member are the exception rather than the rule."

Sorabji, Richard. 2006. "Universals Transformed: The First Thousand Years After Plato." In Universals, Concepts and Qualities: New Essays on the Meaning of Predicates, edited by Strawson, Peter Frederick and Chakrabarti, Arindam, 105–126. Aldershot: Ashgate.

South, James B. 2002. "Singular and Universal in Suárez's account of cognition." The Review of Metaphysics no. 55:785–823.

"In this essay, I argue that the typical way of thinking about the problem of universals and the cognition of them (realism vs. nominalism, abstraction) is inapplicable to the account Suárez gives in his Commentary on the De anima. I show how he justifies objective universal concepts while rejecting the notion of a common nature, as well as the typical nominalist appeal to intuitive cognition. His proposal, I conclude, provides an interesting contrast to the traditional nominalist account of cognition, while retaining the emphasis on the primacy of the singular in intellectual cognition."

Spade, Paul Vincent, ed. 1994. Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals: Porphyry, Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Contents: Introduction VII; Note on the text XVI; Porphyry the Phoenician: Isagoge 1; Boethius: From his Second Commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge 20; Peter Abelard: From the "Glosses on Porphyry" in His Logica 'ingredientibus' 26; John Duns Scotus: Six questions on individuation from his Ordinatio II. d. 3, part 1, qq. 1-6 57; William of Ockham: Five questions on universals from his Ordinatio d. 2, qq. 4-8 114; Glossary 232; Bibliography 235-238.

"It is well known that the problem of universals was widely discussed in mediaeval philosophy --indeed, some would say it was discussed then with a level of insight and rigor it has never enjoyed since. The five texts translated in this volume include the most influential and some of the most sophisticated treatments of the problem in the whole Middle Ages.

The first text is Porphyry's Isagoge, translated here in its entirety. Porphyry was a third-century Greek neo-Platonist, a pupil and the biographer of Plotinus, and the one who arranged Plotinus's writings into six groups of nine essays (the "Enneads").

(...)

Despite its importance in this respect, perhaps the main influence of the Isagoge lies not in what it says, about the predicables or anything else, but in what it does not say. For in his introductory remarks, Porphyry raises but then modestly refuses to answer three questions about the metaphysical status of universals, saying only that they belong to "another, greater investigation". [Isagoge, 2] It is this brief passage that raised the problem of universals in the form in which it was first discussed in the Middle Ages. It contains some of the most consequential lines in the entire history of philosophy.

Porphyry's silence means that there really is no detailed theory of universals in the Isagoge -- or for that matter in his other writings. Taken by himself, therefore, Porphyry would not have been a very important figure in the history of our problem. But he cannot be taken by himself. His importance lies in the fact that his Isagoge was translated into Latin in the early Middle Ages and used as the occasion for discussing the problem of universals directly and in detail. It was as though commentators found his silence intolerable and were irresistibly drawn into the very questions Porphyry himself had declined to discuss.

The most important of these early mediaeval discussions is undoubtedly Boethius's.

(...)

In addition to works of Aristotle, Boethius also translated Porphyry's Isagoge and wrote two commentaries on it. (His first commentary was based on an earlier translation by Marius Victorinus, who is known to readers of Augustine's Confessions VIII. 2 & 4.) Although Boethius addressed the problem of universals in several places, the discussion in his Second Commentary on Porphyry was the longest and probably the most inIluential. The relevant portion of that commentary is translated below.

(...).

Abelard wrote on the problem of universals in several places. The most well known of them is in the "Glosses on Porphyry" in his Logica 'ingredientibus'. Once again the relevant passage is a discussion of Porphyry's three unanswered questions.

(...)

By the time of the last two authors represented below, John Duns Scotus (c. 1265-1308) and William of Ockham (c. 1285-1347), philosophy had become a specialized and highly technical academic discipline, carried on almost exclusively in a university context. These last two texts are here translated into English for the first time, and are by far the longest and most intricate in this volume. " pp. VII-XI.

———. 2005. "The problem of Universals and Wyclif's alleged "Ultrarealism"." Vivarium no. 43:111–123.

Abstract: "John Wyclif has been described as "ultrarealist" in his theory of universals. This paper attempts a preliminary assessment of that judgment and argues that, pending further study, we have no reason to accept it. It is certainly true that Wyclif is extremely vocal and insistent about his realism, but it is not obvious that the actual content of his view is especially extreme. The paper distinguishes two common medieval notions of a universal, the Aristotelian/Porphyrian one in terms of predication and the Boethian one in terms of being metaphysically common to many. On neither approach does Wyclif 's theory of universals postulate new and non-standard entities besides those recognized by more usual versions of realism. Again pending further study, neither do Wyclif 's views appear to assign philosophically extreme or novel roles to the entities he does recognize as universal. On the contrary, by at least one measure, his theory of universals is less extreme than Walter Burley's, as Wyclif himself observes. For Wyclif, the universal is numerically identical with its singulars, but numerical identity is governed by something weaker than the Indiscernibility of identicals."

Spruyt, Joke. 1996. "Gerardus Odonis on the Universal." Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge no. 63:171–20.

Staley, Kevin M. 1992. "Parts and Wholes: Universals as Relations in the Thought of Aquinas." Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association no. 66:203–213.

Stoneham, Tom. 2017. "Berkeley on Abstraction, Universals, and Universal Knowledge." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 267–284. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sweeney, Eileen Carroll. 1995. "Supposition, signification, and universals: metaphysical and linguistic complexity in Aquinas." Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie no. 42:267–290.

Synan, E. A., and Miller, R. G. 2003. "Universals." In New Catholic Encyclopedia. Second Edition. Vol. 14: Thi-Zwi, edited by Marthaler, Berard L., 322–328. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale.

Taleb, Hamid. 2016. "Scotus' Nature: From Universal to Trope." In Universals in the Fourteenth Century, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio and Cesalli, Laurent, 89–108. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

Tarlazzi, Caterina. 2017. "Individuals as Universals: Audacious Views in Early Twelfth-Century Realism." Journal of the History of Philosophy no. 55:557–581.

Abstract: "This article investigates a twelfth-century realist view on universals, the individuum-theory. The individuum-theory is criticized by Peter Abelard and Joscelin of Soissons, and endorsed by ‘Quoniam de generali’ as well as by the unpublished Isagoge commentary found in MS Paris, BnF, lat. 3237, which is here taken into account for the first time. The individuum-theory blurs traditional distinctions between nominalism and realism by claiming that the universal is the individual thing itself. In this paper, I present the main strategies for such a claim; namely, putting forward identity “by indifference,” distinguishing status and attentiones, and neutralizing opposite predicates. I argue that these strategies have parallels in Abelard’s own views. The individuum-theory’s paradoxical realism seems to defend universal res after criticisms were advanced against more traditional material essence realism, and it seems to have been using some of the nominalists’ tools (particularly Abelardian tools) in its endeavor."

———. 2019. "‘Collectio'-Theories of Universals in the Time of Peter Abelard and Boethius' Infinite Regress Argument Against Multiple Genus." In Mereology in Medieval Logic and Metaphysics: Proceedings of the 21st European Symposium of Medieval Logic and Semantics, edited by Amerini, Fabrizio, Binini, Irene and Mugnai, Massimo 75–108. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.

———. 2021. "The debate over universals in the time of Peter Abelard: what it is, and is not, about." British Journal for the History of Philosophy no. 29:1012–1033.

Abstract: "From the nineteenth century onwards, the so-called ‘Debate over Universals’ from the time of Peter Abelard (c. 1100–50) is regarded as one of the major problems of medieval philosophy. This paper tries to advance the current approaches (which fall into two broad categories: a more analytical line of enquiry and a more historical one) by establishing a new understanding based on assumptions and questions. Through a comprehensive analysis of both published and unpublished logical commentaries from the first half of the twelfth century, it shows that – contrary to the received narrative – a lot is not discussed, but rather assumed. It therefore investigates what the debate is not about – arguing that this is just as relevant as what the debate is about."

Thompson, Augustine. 1995. "The Debate on Universals before Peter Abelard." Journal of the History of Philosophy no. 33:409–429.

Trentman, John. 1968. "Predication and universals in Vincent Ferrer's logic." Franciscan Studies no. 28:47–62.

Tweedale, Martin. 1976. Abailard on Universals. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

"This work shows how Abailard elaborated and defended the view that universals are words, avoided the pitfalls of an image theory of thinking, and propounded a theory of "status" and "dicta" as objects of thought without treating them as subjects of predication. His defense of these views is shown to depend on certain fundamental departures from the Aristotelian term logic of his day, including a proposal for subjectless propositions, the treatment of copula plus predicate noun as equivalent to a simple verb, and a transformation of the 'is' of existence into the 'is' of predication."

———. 1984. "Alexander of Aphrodisias views on universals." Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy no. 29:279–303.

———. 1987. "Aristotle's Universals." Australasian Journal of Philosophy no. 65:412–426.

"This paper is devoted in the main to arguing for certain negative theses of the general form: Aristotle did not himself hold such and such a view of universals; but in the course of the discussion some points about Aristotle's own positive conception of universals, to the limited extent that he had one, will emerge. In fact, Aristotle's negative remarks about universals, e.g. that they are not substances, not separate, not in addition to the particulars, etc., are much clearer and less tentative than any of his positive ones, and it is little wonder that interpreters through the ages have attributed to him radically different and opposed positive theories. The words they found in their authority could not easily be used to decide the issue between their competing interpretations.

In order to clarify the aim of this essay I want first of all to distinguish with regard to any topic Aristotle treats the question of what view he himself held, if any, from the question of what view he should have held given the basic tenets and thrust of his whole philosophy. The views which are definitely not, as I shall claim, ones Aristotle himself held, i.e. not defensible answers to the first question, may well be tenable answers to the second. Indeed, I am rather inclined to think there are several mutually incompatible theories that will answer as well as any the question of what view Aristotle should have taken of universals. On that whole matter I shall have nothing more to say in this place.

The two interpretations I shall discuss see Aristotle as a nominalist and a conceptualist respectively. By `nominalism' I mean any theory which says that what is universal is universal only in so far as it is a certain sort of sign. In other words, being a sign is necessary to being a universal, although the converse is not true. Just what the things are which serve as universal signs is left entirely open on this definition of nominalism. Signs may be spoken sounds, written marks, mental images, mental states or any thing you please. Also the definition is non-committal on just what sort of a sign it is that is universal; theories about this will vary with the semantic theory the nominalist adopts. There is perhaps a place for a narrower sense of `nominalism' in which the nominalist must maintain that universals are all certain expressions of a written or spoken language. In this narrower sense Ockham, for example was not a nominalist since the signs he thought of as universal were primarily those of a mental language, although he was certainly a nominalist in the broader sense I first proposed.

By `conceptualism' I mean the view that nothing could be a universal unless there were in existence thought and cognition of an intellectual sort. In this broad sense all nominalists are conceptualists, since presumably there could not be signs unless there were thought. But there is a narrower sense of `conceptualism' too, in which the conceptualist must maintain that universality applies only to mind-dependent entities, e.g. concepts, mental images, etc. (Even words when they are conceived as not identifiable with their physical manifestations are things that cannot exist unless there are minds and so are mind-dependent in my sense.)

The difference between the broad and narrow senses has this noteworthy consequence: someone can be a conceptualist in the broad sense and believe that what is universal is some entity independently existing outside the mind as long as they also accept that it is a universal only when it is thought of or conceived in some way. But such a person is not a conceptualist in the narrow sense. Also nominalists need not be conceptualists in the narrow sense since they can hold that the things which are signs are mind-independent objects with a wholly physical existence, for example sounds or marks.

My task will be to convince the reader that Aristotle was neither a nominalist nor a conceptualist in any of these senses. I shall begin with the nominalist proposal, but to some extent my refutation of it will be incomplete until I have finished with conceptualism. From the fact that Aristotle was not a conceptualist in the broad sense it will follow that he was not a nominalist, so the evidence against broad conceptualism argues against nominalism as well." pp. 412-413.

———. 1988. "Does Scotus' doctrine on universals make any sense?" In Die Philosophie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. In memoriam Konstanty Michalski (1879-1947)), edited by Pluta, Olaf, 103–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

———. 1993. "Duns Scotus' doctrine on Universals and the Aphrodisian tradition." American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly no. 67:77–93.

———. 1998. " Locke on universals: the fruit of Ockham's dilemma?" In Meeting of the Minds: The Relations between Medieval and Classical Modern European Philosophy, edited by Brown, Stephen F., 235–244. Turnhout: Brepols.

———. 1999. Scotus vs. Ockham - A Medieval Dispute Over Universals. Vol. I: Texts. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

Texts translated into English with commentary.

———. 1999. Scotus vs. Ockham - A Medieval Dispute Over Universals. Vol. II: Commentary. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

———. 2013. "Avicenna Latinus on the Ontology of Types and Tokens." In Later Medieval Metaphysics: Ontology, Language, and Logic, edited by Bolyard, Charles and Keele, Rondo, 103–136. New York: Fordham University Press.

Van Dyke, Christina. 2010. "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth: Robert Grosseteste on Universals (and the Posterior Analytics)." Journal of the History of Philosophy no. 48:153–170.

van Iten, Richard J., ed. 1970. The Problem of Universals. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Vanzo, Alberto. 2017. "Kant and Abstractionism about Concept Formation." In The Problem of Universals in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Di Bella, Stefano and Schmaltz, Tad M., 305–323. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wagner, Michael F. 1981. "Supposition theory and the problem of universals." Franciscan Studies no. 41:385–414.

Wöhler, Hans-Ulrich. 2013. "Universals and Individuals." In A companion to Walter Burley: Late Medieval Logician and Metaphysician, edited by Conti, Alessandro D., 167–190. Leiden: Brill.

Wojtczak, Hanna, and Krauzer.Blachowicz, Krystyna. 2022. "Discussion on the existence of universals in Paul of Pyskowice’s autonomous question Utrum universalia subsistant preserved in cod. BJ 1900." Argument. Biannual Philosophical Journal no. 12:31–328.

Abstract: "The problem of the ontological status of universals is one of the most important topics of the medieval discussion, which was also attended by Paweł of Pyskowice, a scholar from Kraków in the first half of the 15th century. He addressed this question in his very extensive commentary on Isagoga (preserved in cod. BJ 1900, mostly in Paul’s handwriting), whose authorship was for years wrongly attributed to Benedict Hesse. In this commentary, 9 questions were devoted to the so-called difficult Porfirian questions. Two of them bear the title Utrum universalia subsistant.

The same title is also given to the stand-alone question (written in Paul’s handwriting but loosely attached to cod. BJ 1900) which is the subject of this paper. Although it repeats the subject of two questions belonging to the commentary, it definitely differs from them — not only in substance but also in form. At the beginning, Paul presents three realistic positions: two extreme ones, i.e. Platonic and Wyclifist, and a moderate one — Aristotelian. Referring to them, he adopts the Aristotelian solution, according to which there is no universal in essendo separated from individual things. Paweł analyses universals on two levels: the metaphysical or epistemological, and the logical."

Wolfson, Harry A. 1988. "Maimonides on Modes and Universals." In Maimonides: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by Buijs, Joseph A. , 166–174. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Woods, Michael. 1991. "Universals and particulars forms in Aristotle's Metaphysics." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy no. Supplementary volume:41–56.

"In Form and Universal in Aristotle,(1) Antony Lloyd wrote: ‘to attribute particular forms to Aristotle has only recently been a familiar notion for most British and American scholars’. Since then, the number of those who have taken the same view as Lloyd has grown.(2) his tendency among recent writers on Aristotle has encouraged me to look again at Metaph. Z 13, which has been thought to require the attribution of a belief in particular forms to Aristotle.

The dilemma’ is, of course, that if Aristotle’s final view is that no universal is a substance, it follows that if forms are substances, they cannot be universal. This problem will evaporate if Aristotle accepted particular forms: he can then happily say that no substance is universal. It is natural to take some of the requirements made in chapter 13 of Z for anything to qualify as an ousia to derive from that.

However, there is, of course, pressure to hold that ousia must be universal since it is thought that it is ousia of which there ought to be horismos, and horismos is always of the universal. Moreover, to ti en einai is normally understood as precisely that whose specification is given in a horismos,’ and a ti en einai is a form. I want to show that there are considerable difficulties in reading Z 13 in terms of particular forms." (p. 41)

(1) (ARCA: Classical and Medieval Texts and Monographs; Liverpool, 1981).

(2) Among others may be mentioned Terence Irwin in Aristotle on First Principles (Oxford, 1989), and also Frede and Patzig in their commentary on Metaphysics Z: M. Frede and G. Patzig, Aristoteles ‘Metaphysik Z’; Text, Ubersetzung und Kommentar, 2 vols. (Munich, 1988).

(3) This dilemma was stated very clearly by James Lesher in ‘Aristotle on Form, Substance and Universals: A Dilemma’, Phronesis, 16 (1979), 169-78.

(4) See e.g. 1031a12.

Zachhuber, Johannes. 2023. "John of Damascus’ View of Universals and Particulars in Light of the Christological Debate." In John of Damascus: More Than a Compiler, edited by Ables, Scott, 223–239. Leiden: Brill.

Abstract: "In this chapter, I will consider John of Damascus’ understanding of universals and particulars. I shall argue that the Damascene’s philosophical views can be explained by inscribing his reflections into a trajectory emerging from the Christological controversies of the fifth century. Specifically, I shall contend that the apologetic need to justify the Chalcedonian tenet that the Incarnate existed as one hypostasis in two natures, divine and human, can be shown to stand behind some of John’s most distinctive philosophical ideas. In this sense, I reconstruct the Damascene’s ideas on universals and particulars as a paradigmatic case of Patristic philosophy."

Zupko, Jack. 2013. "Universal Thinking as Process: The Metaphysics of Change and Identity in John Buridan's Intellectio Theory " In Later Medieval Metaphysics: Ontology, Language, and Logic edited by Bolyard, Charles and Keele, Rondo, 137–160. New York: Fordham University Press.