‘Transferred or Transformed?’ applied to universals in the commentators on Aristotle
Richard Sorabji
Aristotle, the Stoics and Boethus the Aristotelian: universals downgraded
Alexander (a) universals abstracted by the mind from material particulars
Alexander (b) universals as forms present in more than one material particular
Alexander (c) causal roles of forms qua universal in particulars
The Neoplatonists: Platonic Forms not universals
Proclus: universals before, in and after the many particulars
Porphyry (a) genus prior because prerequisite and constitutive origin of species and individuals
Porphyry: why Aristotle for his purposes made genus secondary to individual
Porphyry (b) form abstracted from matter gives concept, universal and knowledge of Platonic Form
Iamblichus: Socrates and Aristotle’s universal genus human are human by participating in the true Platonic genus Human.
Ammonius: Plato’s genera ‘before’ the many particulars are not transcendent Forms, but thinkable models in the mind of the divine Creator
Ammonius: it is Aristotle’s genera ‘in’ particulars that require more than one specimen
Ammonius: the genus ‘after’ the many is conceptual in our thought, we use it for defining forms, and Ammonius thinks it ascribed to Aristotle by Porphyry
Ammonius: Why Aristotle for his purposes made genus secondary to individual
Philoponus why Aristotle for his purposes made genus secondary to individual
Philoponus cites Ammonius’ genera before, in and after the many, but will not himself endorse all three
Philoponus: the only universals are concepts produced by the mind and it is concepts that we define
Philoponus makes the one God of Christianity a universal concept, while the three persons are three individual substances or godheads