Comparative Study of the Aristotle Universal and Vaisesika’s Universal

Abstract

This study compares and contrasts the use of the term “universal” in Aristotle’s metaphysics with that of the Vaiśeṣika school of Indian philosophy. Although they develop from different ontological and epistemological traditions, universals play a vital role in both traditions as explanation principles for sameness, categorization, and knowledge. In Aristotle’s view, universals (katholou) are not separate from but rather realized inside particular objects; they are immanent in all things and can be understood by mental abstraction. The Vaiśeṣika school of thought, on the other hand, holds that there are actual, everlasting beings called universals (sāmānya) that are present in all substances and have common attributes. This view was formalized by Kaṇāda and subsequent commentators. The study emphasizes that Aristotle’s moderate realism refrains from treating universals as distinct things, but Vaiśeṣika presents a strong realist theory based on the principle of inherence (samavāya). By contrasting different views, the article clarifies how realists, abstract thinkers, and those with strong metaphysical convictions approach the issue of universals. The examination further shows that the conceptualization of universal truth varies among traditions due to cultural and methodological factors. By elucidating the similarities and differences between the Aristotelian and Vaiśeṣika conceptions of universals, the study ultimately adds to the ongoing conversation on metaphysics across cultures.