Whether the more universal is first in our intellectual cognition?

❌ Objection 1 : It would seem that the more universal is not first in our intellectual cognition. For what is first and more known in its own nature, is secondarily and less known in relation to ourselves. But universals come first as regards their nature, because "that is first which does not involve the existence of its correlative" (Categor. ix). Therefore the universals are secondarily known as regards our intellect.

❌ Objection 2 : Further, the composition precedes the simple in relation to us. But universals are the more simple. Therefore they are known secondarily by us.

❌ Objection 3 : Further, the Philosopher says (Phys. i, 1), that the object defined comes in our knowledge before the parts of its definition. But the more universal is part of the definition of the less universal, as "animal" is part of the definition of "man." Therefore the universals are secondarily known by us.

❌ Objection 4 : Further, we know causes and principles by their effects. But universals are principles. Therefore universals are secondarily known by us.