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 transcendental is not necessarily common to many inferi... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A transcendental is not necessarily common to many inferiors.

    Divine Attributes
    ?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.It belongs to the meaning of 'transcendental' to have no predicate above it but 'being'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That a transcendental be common to many inferiors is inessential to its meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Aristotle and the Scholastics, universals are defined precisely by their predicability of many inferiors (De Interpretatione 17a39).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Transcendentals like 'being', 'one', and 'good' function as the most universal predicates, applicable across all categories without restriction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If commonality to many inferiors is stripped from transcendentals, they lose their logical function as universal terms and collapse into singular proper names.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas in De Veritate explicitly grounds transcendentals in their convertibility, which presupposes equal extension across all beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A term with no superordinate genus that is also not common to inferiors would be an isolated term, neither universal nor particular, which is logically incoherent within Scholastic logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Scholastic tradition from Avicenna through Duns Scotus consistently treats transcendentals as maximally common, making commonality constitutive, not accidental, to their transcendental status.
      ?

      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 AttributesProof of definition segments

    Related

    A term with no superordinate genus that is also not common to inferiors would be...Aquinas in De Veritate explicitly grounds transcendentals in their convertibilit...For Aristotle and the Scholastics, universals are defined precisely by their pre...If commonality to many inferiors is stripped from transcendentals, they lose the...
    +4 moreShow less
    It belongs to the meaning of 'transcendental' to have no predicate above it but ...That a transcendental be common to many inferiors is inessential to its meaning.The Scholastic tradition from Avicenna through Duns Scotus consistently treats t...Transcendentals like 'being', 'one', and 'good' function as the most universal p...

    Similar

    That a transcendental be common to many inferiors is inessential to it...91%Commonality is not essential to being a transcendental.81%The range of the transcendental is extended beyond the traditional com...81%Whatever is coextensive with being counts as a transcendental.78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: transcendentals-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    Duns Scotus (ca. 1266–1308) identifies the subject of metaphysics with the first object of the intellect; since “all things naturally knowable of God are transcendental,” metaphysics includes a consideration of the divine. Scotus formulates a new conception of transcendentality, according to which a transcendental has no predicate above it except being. The consequence is that a transcendental is not necessarily common: “Therefore, it belongs to the meaning of ‘transcendental’ to have no predica
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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