Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A predicate coextensive with being only as a disjunction fails the univocity requirement that grounds Scotus's own transcendental theory.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Disjunctive predicates can maintain univocity if the disjuncts share a common formal structure or ground in reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Scotus himself allows for analogical and non-strict univocal predication in some contexts, softening the univocity requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mathematical and logical predicates are often disjunctive yet univocal; univocity does not require eliminable disjunction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Univocity requires a single intelligible content shared across instances; disjunctive predicates lack this unified semantic core.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Scotus's transcendental theory depends on concepts having determinate meaning independent of their instances' ontological status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If 'being' is only expressible as a disjunction, it becomes equivocal across categories, undermining transcendental metaphysics.
?
How convincing is this?
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.