How does nominalism explain general words such as “redness” without independent universals?

Nominalism explains general words like "redness" by rejecting the existence of universals—extra, abstract entities that exist independently of individual objects. Instead of positing that a universal "redness" exists as a third entity shared by a rose and a fire truck, nominalists account for general terms through other means:1

• Resemblance: Many nominalists argue that general words are applied because individual things share objective relations of resemblance. Things are grouped together not because they share a common "universal" property, but because they are similar to one another.231
• Mental Concepts: Philosophers like William of Ockham suggested that general terms function as "natural signs" or mental concepts. These internal representations allow humans to think and speak in general terms without requiring the existence of a corresponding universal entity in the world.32
• Linguistic/Symbolic Use: Nominalism often emphasizes that general words are simply symbols or linguistic tools used to classify or describe experiences. By treating these terms as ways to categorize observations rather than names for metaphysical entities, nominalists avoid the need to posit abstract properties.24

Ultimately, nominalists maintain that there is no need to assume that a general word implies the existence of a general thing.2