Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A being by substance is not a being by participation.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Participation admits of degrees: a being can participate in its own esse as a mode of self-constitution, not merely as derivation from another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aquinas's real distinction between esse and essentia applies even to God's effects in ways that blur the binary of substance-being vs. participation-being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If participation entails ontological dependence, then a necessary being whose existence is self-grounded could be both being-by-substance and being-by-participation simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plotinus's One transcends being entirely, suggesting that the highest principle is neither being-by-substance nor being-by-participation but prior to both categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the claim relies on the convertibility of being and essence in God, then the distinction between 'being by substance' and 'being by participation' presupposes a categorial framework inapplicable to the divine nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Everything that is caused is other than its being and thus is a being by participation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being by substance is its being (not other than its being).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.