Abstract

Spinoza claims that universal notions (notiones universales) are simply based on the comparison of individuals and that they do not refer to universal properties. But he also holds that common notions (notiones communes) refer to something that is common to all individuals. Does this mean that he defends different theories of universals with respect to different types of notions? This paper rejects this interpretation, arguing that Spinoza subscribes to a comprehensive nominalist position. On his view there are nothing but individuals, which, however, can be apprehended in different ways: with respect to their perceptual or their geometric and kinematic properties. These two kinds of properties give rise to two different types of notions, each of them having its own value. Both types are analyzed and related to each other.