And if it is said, “They share in unqualified, universal existence,” that unqualified universal is unqualified and universal only in the mind. There is no unqualified universal in external reality that they share. Rather, this one has a share of it and that one has a share of it, and each of the two shares (1) is distinct from the other.

As for one who says, “The unqualified universal is part of the determinate entity” (* and “‘existent’ is part of ‘this existent’” (2), and “‘human being’ is part of ‘this human being’”: if by this he means that the determinate entity *) (3) is described by it, such that it is an attribute of that entity—and although it is an attribute of that entity, the very same attribute belonging to it (4) is not found in another (5)—then this meaning is sound. However, when the expression is used without qualification, it is not understood to mean that an attribute is part of the thing described.

If, however, what is meant is that the very existence or human being found in the determinate entity is itself present in the other, that is sheer obstinacy.

If he says, “I meant only that the species is in the other,” the discussion then returns to the species, for the species too is universal (6).

The five universals are the universals of genus, species, differentia, property, and common accident. The same account applies to all of them: none exists in external reality as an unqualified universal; they are unqualified universals only in minds, not in concrete entities.