Gregory of Nyssa on Universals

[Myles Domini]

Some knowledgeable fellow e.g. L_D care to explain Gregory Nyssa's understanding of Universals? I just want to make sure I'm getting it, k?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[i]Myles,

We're discussing this question over PM so I figured I'd post snippets from our developing convo so that this question doesn't join the ranks of the many unanswered QA posts. It's a sad fate for sure.[/i]

Nyssa is a bit removed from the medieval realist/nominalist controversy no doubt, and if I were to evaluate him from that vantage point I think it would be a bit awkward. For Nyssa universals are concrete, being both [i]entelekheia[/i] and in a unique sense [i]eide[/i]. But there is an immanentism and idealism which shapes this intermediary position (intermediary to the generic Platonic and Aristotelian views), in which universals are both [i]logos[/i] and [i]dunamis[/i]; simultaneously universal and concrete. There is a kind of duality to the cosmos. There are antinomies in existence in which unity and multiplicity, universal and concrete, spiritual and material, etc. are simultaneous in a thing. At least that's how I understand it. I hope I'm on the right track.