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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A transcendental is not necessarily common to many inferiors.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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