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
    A being can be basic without being absolutely simple — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A being can be basic without being absolutely simple

    Divine AttributesModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Socrates is basic in some relevant sense yet is composed of many parts such as arms, legs, organs, bones, molecules, and atoms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Phonemes are basic relative to the morphemes of a linguistic theory, yet are complex because they are composed of simpler sound components
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The concept of 'basicness' is always relative to a descriptive framework, not an intrinsic ontological feature of the entity itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being that is basic only relative to some framework cannot ground the explanatory regress that motivates positing basic beings in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, relative basicness and absolute simplicity serve entirely distinct metaphysical functions, and conflating them equivocates on 'basic'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas and the classical theist tradition hold that any composite being depends on something external to unify its parts, generating a vicious explanatory regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being that is basic yet composite inherits this dependency relation, meaning it cannot be self-subsistent or serve as an ultimate terminus of explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An ultimate ontological ground must terminate all dependency relations, which only absolute simplicity—not mere relative basicness—can achieve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Divine AttributesModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A being that is basic only relative to some framework cannot ground the explanat...A being that is basic yet composite inherits this dependency relation, meaning i...An ultimate ontological ground must terminate all dependency relations, which on...Aquinas and the classical theist tradition hold that any composite being depends...
    +4 moreShow less
    Phonemes are basic relative to the morphemes of a linguistic theory, yet are com...Socrates is basic in some relevant sense yet is composed of many parts such as a...The concept of 'basicness' is always relative to a descriptive framework, not an...Therefore, relative basicness and absolute simplicity serve entirely distinct me...

    Similar

    God, being simple, is not limited by matter81%The One's simplicity precludes any form of being79%Extended simples are possible77%The essence of the simple being is simple and indivisible77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: aristotle
    View source passageHide passage
    Importantly, these beings may be basic without being absolutely simple. After all, Socrates is made up of all manner of parts—arms and legs, organs and bones, molecules and atoms, and so on down. As a useful linguistic analogue, we may consider phonemes, which are basic, relative to the morphemes of a linguistic theory, and yet also complex, since they are made up of simpler sound components, which are irrelevant from the linguist’s point of view because of their lying beneath the level of seman
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit