Marcuse sees the denial of universals as preventing philosophy from being radical. This denial of universals is called “nominalism,” and Marcuse initially focuses his criticism of nominalist thinking on analytic philosopher William Van Orman Quine, who assumes a “scientistic” method. Marcuse is troubled by the ways modern analytic philosophy dismisses that which cannot be verified empirically, so that concepts such as “will,” “soul,” etc., are deemed irrelevant and often ridiculed.

For a nominalist, there is no true definition of anything universal: all is nominal. Nominalism, according to Marcuse, is a tool of the status quo, and we need realism so that we can apprehend substances of oppression. Liberation must be material, but it also must occur intellectually, in the ways we think. To be free of any totalitarian system is to liberate the individual from oppressive structures, which requires a recognition of universal and historical substances.

As part of this criticism, Marcuse offers several examples of substances of one over many, including the university, Congress, etc. Marcuse insists that these institutions are substances that must be acknowledged, because without acknowledgment of these oppressive forces as substances, political revolution cannot occur. We need to take action to change these substances, which requires that we think of them as substances.