Final answer:
Nominalists view universals and categories as constructs of language, with no mind-independent existence. They treat these concepts skeptically, seeing them as useful but not real.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of nominalism, nominalists approach universals and categories with skepticism. Unlike Platonists who posit the existence of abstract forms or universals, nominalists contend that only particular, individual objects exist and universals are mere names (nomina) without any corresponding reality. Therefore, universals and categories are not treated as real, mind-independent entities, but rather as constructs or conveniences of language.
Aristotle's approach, contrary to Plato's ideal forms, focuses on the specifics and natural observation, drawing categories like species and genera from this process. However, nominalists would even deny the inherent reality of Aristotelian categories, viewing them as useful fictions. Kant introduces a nuanced view by suggesting that while our knowledge is shaped by experience, our minds contribute a set of innate categories necessary for understanding that experience. Nevertheless, for nominalists, these categories wouldn't possess ontological status; instead, they represent cognitive tools our minds use to structure perceptions and thoughts.