Even this, however, is mistaken; for nothing that exists outside the mind is a universal in any sense. External reality contains only concrete, particular things.

When people speak of “the natural universal that exists outside,” what they mean is merely that the concept which is universal in the intellect corresponds to the individuals found in the external world, just as a general class corresponds to its members. What is actually outside, though, is a determinate particular, not a universal at all, albeit it possesses a share of that universal.

It is common, moreover, to speak of what is in the mind as though it were outside—for example: “I have carried out what was in my mind,” or, “There are matters in my mind that I wish to accomplish.” The same usage appears in the Almighty’s words: “except a need within Jacob’s soul which he satisfied” (Q 12:68), and in ʿUmar’s remark, “I had composed in my mind a speech I wished to deliver,” along with many similar expressions.

Whenever a universal does exist outside the mind, it can do so only as a particular; it is never universal there. Its universality is conditional upon its being in the intellect.

Anyone who affirms an essence that is neither in the mind nor in external reality—once his claim is grasped in full, that alone suffices to show its falsity. These issues are treated at length elsewhere.

Return to the original subject.

What concerns us here is that this branch of knowledge rests upon sound demonstrations, yet it neither perfects the soul, nor saves it from punishment, nor secures it true happiness. For that reason Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī and others, when discussing the sciences of such people, said: