How did Peter Abelard’s view of universals differ from the realism taught by Guillaume de Champeaux?

Peter Abelard’s perspective on the problem of universals offered a middle ground that diverged significantly from the realism taught by his teacher, William of Champeaux.123

• William of Champeaux’s Realism: William taught a form of Platonic realism, asserting that universals are objective realities that exist independently of the human mind. In this view, a universal like "humanity" represents an actual essence shared by all individual human beings.123
• Abelard’s Position: Abelard rejected the idea that universals are independent essences. He argued that only individual things are real. For Abelard, universals are mental concepts or names that derive their meaning from their reference to individuals.12

Rather than signifying a common essence, Abelard maintained that these concepts signify individuals in their "common condition" or status—a shared state of being in a specific species—which arises because God created those individuals according to the same divine idea. By grounding universals in the relationship between language, mental concepts, and individual reality, Abelard sought to move beyond the extremes of both realism and the strict nominalism of his other teacher, Roscelin.123