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
    A science of being qua being is possible even though ther... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A science of being qua being is possible even though there is no genus of being

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.All beings are related to a core instance of being, namely substance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is possible to study all beings insofar as they relate to that core instance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The core instance, substance, can itself be studied as the prime occasion of being
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Focal meaning (pros hen equivocity) requires a unified subject matter, but 'being' resists reduction to any single focal referent without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If substance is the core instance of being, the selection of substance as core presupposes a prior understanding of being that the science was meant to ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A science that depends on an unscientific starting point violates Aristotle's own requirement in Posterior Analytics that demonstrative sciences rest on proper first principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's transcendental analytic demonstrates that 'being' is not a real predicate and cannot function as an object of unified theoretical inquiry the way natural kinds can.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a genuine genus delimiting its subject matter, what Aristotle calls 'first philosophy' collapses into either theology or a mere catalogue of categorial distinctions, not a unified science.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Natural Theology3 linkedModality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A science that depends on an unscientific starting point violates Aristotle's ow...All beings are related to a core instance of being, namely substanceFocal meaning (pros hen equivocity) requires a unified subject matter, but 'bein...If substance is the core instance of being, the selection of substance as core p...
    +4 moreShow less
    It is possible to study all beings insofar as they relate to that core instanceKant's transcendental analytic demonstrates that 'being' is not a real predicate...The core instance, substance, can itself be studied as the prime occasion of bei...

    Similar

    If being were a genus, it would have to be differentiated by a differe...80%Aristotle rejects the view that being is a genus.78%A science may not demonstrate the existence of its own subject matter.77%Being is not a genus but a pros hen homonym — things are called 'being...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: aristotle
    View source passageHide passage
    Of course, the last three items on this list are rather awkward locutions, but this is because they strive to make explicit that we can speak of dependent beings as existing if we wish to do so—but only because of their dependence upon the core instance of being, namely substance. (Here it is noteworthy that ‘primary substance’ is the conventional and not very happy rendering of Aristotle’s protê ousia in Greek, which means, more literally, ‘primary being’).[14] According to this approach, we
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Without a genuine genus delimiting its subject matter, what Aristotle calls 'fir...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit