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 real distinction between two aspects of a being constitutes a form of composition, contradicting absolute simplicity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Real distinctions can hold between aspects that are not ontologically separable parts; identity does not require indistinguishability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A being's essential attributes (e.g., God's justice and mercy) can be really distinct conceptually without being compositionally divided.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Composition presupposes parts logically independent and separately instantiable; real distinctions may obtain only within an intrinsic unity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Composition requires distinct parts related in a unified whole; real distinctions establish differentiated aspects within a single being.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If two aspects are really distinct, they possess different characteristics; different characteristics imply ontological separation, hence composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Absolute simplicity requires no internal differentiation whatsoever; any real distinction, however subtle, introduces multiplicity.
?
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.