Full Idea
One might ask: what on earth do you mean by speaking of the thing-itself? - assuming the definition of man is one and the same both in man and in man-himself; for qua man they will not differ at all.
Clarification
'Qua' means 'as'; 'man qua man' means 'man as pure man', rather than (say) man-as-postman
Gist of Idea
It is meaningless to speak of 'man-himself', because it has the same definition as plain 'man'
Source
Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1096a32)
Book Reference
Aristotle: 'Ethics (Nicomachean)', ed/tr. ThomsonJ A K/TredennickH [Penguin 1976], p.70
A Reaction
Effectively applies Ockham's Razor to the Forms. Do they add anything to our ability to explain? A particular man will have red hair, but a definition of man will mention properties shared by all men. But doesn't man-himself indicate what is essential?