B. Scotus’ own Opinion

29. To the question then [n.1], I say, conceding the conclusion of the above arguments [nn.7-8], that material substance is not of itself from its own nature a ‘this’, because in that case, as the first argument proves [n.7], the intellect could not understand material substance under its opposite if it did not understand its own object under an idea of understanding repugnant to the idea of such an object.

30. Also as the second argument proves [n.8], along with all its own proofs [nn.9-28], there is, without any operation of the intellect, some real unity in things less than numerical unity or than the proper unity of a singular, which unity belongs to nature of itself; and nature, according to this proper unity of nature as it is nature, is indifferent to the unity of singulars; so nature is not thus one by that unity, namely the unity of singulars.

31. But how this should be understood can in some way be seen from the statement of Avicenna Metaphysics 5.1 f.86va,“For the definition of horseness is aside from the definition of universality, and universality is not contained in the definition of horseness; for horseness has a definition that does not contain universality but universality is accidental to it; hence horseness itself is not anything but horseness alone; for it is of itself neither many nor one, and is not existent in sensible things or in the soul; nor is it any of these potentially or in fact, such that they are contained in the essence of horseness; but it is, from what it is, horseness alone.” ⁴⁶ where he maintains that ‘horseness is just horseness, and is not of itself one or many, or universal or particular’. I understand this to mean that horseness is not of itself one by numerical unity, nor many by the manyness opposed to that oneness; nor is it actually universal (namely in the way that something is universal as it is the object of the intellect), nor is it of itself particular.

32. For although it is really never without some of them, yet it is of itself none of them, but is naturally prior to all of them, and according to natural priority its ‘what it is’ is per se the object of the intellect and, as such, it is per se considered by the metaphysician and expressed in a definition; and propositions ‘true in the first mode’ are true by reason of the whatness thus taken, because nothing is said ‘per se in the first mode’ about a whatness save what is essentially included in the whatness, insofar as it is abstracted from all of the above things which are naturally posterior to it [1 d.3 n.164, d.5 n.18, d.2 nn.19, 25].

33. But not only is the nature of itself indifferent to existence in the intellect and in the particular, and thereby indifferent to universal and to particular (or singular) existence, but also, as it has existence in the intellect, it does not first of itself have universality. For although it is understood under universality as under the mode of understanding it, yet universality is not part of its first concept, because it is not part of a metaphysical but of a logical concept (for the logician considers second intentions applied to first intentions, according to Avicenna). Therefore the first understanding is of the nature without any mode being understood along with it, either the mode that belongs to it in the intellect or the mode that belongs to it outside the intellect; and although the mode in which that understanding is understood is universality yet it is not a mode of that understanding.

34. And just as, according to that existence [sc. existence in the intellect], the nature is not of itself universal, but universality is an accident of the nature according to its first idea, according to which idea the nature is object - so too in the thing outside [the intellect], where the nature exists along with singularity, the nature is not of itself determined to singularity but is naturally prior to the idea that contracts it down to that singularity; and insofar as it is naturally prior to what contracts it, there is no repugnance in its existing without what contracts it. And just as the object in the intellect did, according to the primacy and universality of it, have intelligible existence, so too the nature according to that entity has true real being outside the soul in the thing; and according to that entity it has the unity proportioned to it, which unity is indifferent to singularity, so that there is no repugnance in that unity’s being of itself posited as existing with some unity of singularity (so this is how I understand ‘nature has a real unity less than numerical unity’); and although it not have the unity of singularity of itself, so that such unity be internal to the idea of the nature (because ‘horseness is just horseness’, as Avicenna says in Metaphysics 5 [n.31]), yet that unity is a proper accident of the nature according to its first entity, and consequently the nature is not of itself a ‘this’, either intrinsically or according to the proper entity necessarily included in the nature according to its first entity.

35. But against this [n.34, about the indetermination and indifference of nature to singularity] there seem to be two objections:

One, that it seems to posit that the universal is something real in the thing (which is against the Commentator [Averroes] in On the Soul 1 comm.8,“It is shown by this that Aristotle does not think that definitions of genus and species are definitions of universal things existing outside the soul, but definitions of particular things outside the intellect; but the intellect - which acts - creates in them universality; and it is as if he said: and the being of definitions is not attributed to species and genus such that those universal things exist outside the intellect. For either the universal living thing or animal is altogether nothing, or, if some universal thing is a per se being, its being is posterior to the being of sensibles; and he said this because it appears here that definitions are of the sensible things existing outside the intellect, and then either there are no universal things existing per se, the way Plato used to say, or, if there are, their being is not necessary to the understanding of sensible things.” ⁴⁷ when he says that ‘the intellect makes universality in things, so that universality does not exist save through the intellect’, and thus universality is just a being of reason) - for although the nature as it is a being in this stone is naturally prior to the singularity of the stone, yet, from what was said [n.34], it is indifferent to this singular and to that [sc. and such indifference is a mark of universality].

36. Further, Damascene Orthodox Faith ch.8 n.16 says, “It must be borne in mind that it is one thing to be considered in reality and another to be considered in reason and thought. So, and more particularly, the division of hypostases [supposits] in the case of any creature is considered in reality (for Peter is considered in reality as separate from Paul), but commonness and union are considered only in the intellect, reason, and thought (for we understand by the intellect that Peter and Paul belong to one nature and have one common nature); . .for neither do these hypostases exist in one another, but each is divided one by one, that is, separated in reality.” And later [ch.8 n.17], “However, in the holy and supersubstantial Trinity it is contrariwise; for there what is common is considered one in reality, ...but afterwards in thought it is considered divided.”

37. As to the first [n.35], I say that a universal in act is that which has some indifferent unity, according to which the identically same universal is in proximate potency to being stated of any supposit whatever, because, according to the Philosopher Posterior Analytics 1.4.73b26-33, a ‘universal’ is what is a one in many and of many. For nothing in reality - according to any unity - is such that according to that precise unity it is in proximate potency for any supposit by a predication stating ‘this is this’; because, although there is no repugnance for something existing in reality to be in a singularity other than the one it is in [n.34], yet this something cannot truly be stated of any inferior beneath it, that ‘anything whatever is this’; for this is only possible of an object the same in number actually considered by the intellect - which object indeed ‘as understood’ has also the numerical unity of an object, according to which it is, as identically the same, predicable of every singular, by saying that ‘this is this’.

38. Hereby is evident the refutation of the statement that ‘the agent intellect creates universality in things’ [n.35, cf. Scotus On the Soul q.17 n.14] on the ground that one can say of any ‘what it is’ existing in a phantasm that it is such that being in something else is not repugnant to it, and on the ground that there is a denuding [Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet 8 q.12, 13 q.8] of the ‘what is’ existing in the phantasm - for whenever a ‘what is’ exists beforehand in the possible intellect, it has objective being, either in reality or in a phantasm, or it has a being that is definite or deduced through reason (and thus not through any [intelligible] light, but it is always of itself a nature of such sort that being in another is not repugnant to it); but it is not of such sort that being said of anything whatever belongs to it in proximate potency, but only in the possible intellect is it in [such] proximate potency.

There is then in reality a ‘common thing’ that is not of itself a ‘this’, and consequently ‘non-this’ is not repugnant to it of itself. But such a common thing is not a universal in act, because there is lacking to it the indifference by which a universal is a completed universal, namely the indifference by which the common thing, being identically the same by some identity, is predicable of any individual, such that any individual is it.

39. To the second objection - from Damascene [n.36] - I say that what is common in creatures is not really one in the way that what is common in divine reality is really one. For in divine reality what is common is singular and individual, because the very divine nature is of itself a ‘this’, and it is manifest that in this way no universal in creatures is really one; for to posit this would be to posit that some undivided created nature was predicated of many individuals by a predication stating that ‘this is this’, just as it is said that the Father is God and the Son is the same God. But in creatures there is some common thing one by a real unity less than numerical unity, and this ‘common thing’ is not so common that it is predicable of many, although it is so common that its being in something other than what it is in is not repugnant to it.

40. So it is plain in two ways how the authority [of Damascene] is not against me: first because he is speaking of the unity of singularity in divine reality, and in this way not only is the created universal not one but it is also not common in creatures [or: the common in creatures is not one]; second because he is speaking of a common predicable, not precisely of a common that is determinate in fact (even though being in another is not repugnant to it), and a common of this sort can be precisely posited really in creatures.