Hey,

Straight to the question: Are there such thing as Aristotelian universals? I have struggled with this question for a while and still cannot fully say 'yes' to it. The problem became much more difficult when my professor suggested that if one denies Plato's form then it is the case that one no longer believe in universals and thus are nominalists; no matter what they may call themselves. For the denial of universals means there is nothing in the table that points to, namely, table-ness, and thus a table is table because it just is one. There is no participatory act occuring within the table juxtaposed to Plato's form.

Universals, by definition, are that which exists outside of the instantiation which the instantiation participates in. And nominalism is the denial of universals by asserting that whatever exists do not particpate in a form outside of itself (I have oversimplified both positions, so feel free to correct my definitions if you think they are not accurate). So what are Aristotelian universals?

Dr. Feser in his books has argued for Aristotelian universals, and so has another professor of mine, as the middle ground between the two camps. But, as you are now aware, I still am unable to see how there is a middle ground. I'm wanting to affirm Aristotelian universals but somehow always end up arguing for Plato's form because, I think, nominalism is wrong. 

So, if you can explain Aristotelian universals without somehow commiting to the 'forms' or to nominalism, I would be very grateful.

Many thanks,
IJ