Can you restate this arugument by Ockham? Can you state in your own words? No universal is a particular substance, numerically one; for if this...

If humanness is a universal that applies to all humans, why
can't Socrates also be a universal that applies to all Socrates'? Even though we know of only one
Socrates, who's to say what is a universal and what is not? But since Socrates is One thing, he
can't be a universal because a universal is a quality, type, property or state of being that
applies to more than one thing; such as humanness applies to all
humans.

If we look at each substance by itself, it is One and not
many. This is common sense. So, if we look at One universal by itself, it should also be one and
not many. But some would claim humanness is a several things (applying to all humans); if it is
several things it either has to be several particulars (several humans) or several universals
(several humannesses). Several humans is logical. This is several particulars.
 

If some substance is several universals, that is several
humannesses, take one of those universals and ask if it is One thing or many things. If one of
those universals, is One thing, then it is One thing; a particular. Therefore, it can't be a
universal. If one of those universals is several things, whether you call them several particular
or several universal things, that substance is several separate things. Being that they are
several different things, they are several particular things. Thus, even if you call humanness a
universal, and say that it applies to several humans, what you really have is several humans =
several particulars.

If humanness exists as something by itself, it
is One; a particular. If it exists as many things, it is many. Each of the many is One; each is a
particular.

You could distinguish One humanness (universal) from one
human (particular), but you could not distinguish One humanness from several humans; because One
humanness, again even if you call it a universal, actually means several particulars. So, saying
One humannes and several humans would be saying the same thing. Ockham is essentially saying that
a universal is a fancy abstract way of saying "many."