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
    Accidental forms inhering in individual substances can be... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Accidental forms inhering in individual substances can be predicated of the universal substantial form those individuals instantiate only indirectly (essentialiter), through and in virtue of those individuals

    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.Accidental forms inhere in individual substances, not directly in universal substantial forms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Universal substantial forms are only related to accidental forms mediately, through the individuals that instantiate them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Universals, on a realist account (cf. Armstrong), are wholly present in each instance and thus directly bear whatever properties their instances bear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a universal is wholly present in an individual, accidental forms inhering in that individual inhere directly in the universal, not merely indirectly through it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas holds that predicates apply to a species in virtue of what belongs to the species as such, making accidental properties of individuals categorically distinct from species-level predication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If accidental forms cannot be predicated of the universal substantial form even indirectly without distorting the species-individual distinction, the 'essentialiter' route collapses into mere equivocation.
      ?

      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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Key Terms

    Accidental forms(Distinguished from substantial form in hylomorphic analysis)
    A substance's accidental qualities, as opposed to its substantial form
    Essentialiter (Latin)(in medieval and contemporary philosophy)
    In an essential way, or relating to the core nature of something rather than its accidental features.
    Individual substances(in metaphysics/ontology)
    Specific, concrete things that actually exist—like a particular cat or table—as opposed to abstract ideas or general categories.
    Inhering(in metaphysics)
    Existing in or belonging to something as a natural or permanent part of it; think of a quality that sticks with or depends on something else to exist.
    Predicated(used when discussing whether we can say 'motion' applies to something)
    Asserted or stated as true about something—when you say a quality or action 'belongs to' or 'applies to' something.
    Universal substantial form(in metaphysics, drawing on Aristotelian philosophy)
    The shared essential nature or defining blueprint that all members of a category (like all humans or all dogs) have in common.
    instantiate(as used in metaphysics)
    To be a concrete example of something, or to have and display a particular property or category.

    Related

    Accidental forms inhere in individual substances, not directly in universal subs...Aquinas holds that predicates apply to a species in virtue of what belongs to th...If a universal is wholly present in an individual, accidental forms inhering in ...If accidental forms cannot be predicated of the universal substantial form even ...
    +2 moreShow less
    Universal substantial forms are only related to accidental forms mediately, thro...Universals, on a realist account (cf. Armstrong), are wholly present in each ins...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: penbygull
    View source passageHide passage
    According to Alyngton, who depends on Avicenna and Wyclif on this topic, the formal universals are common natures in virtue of which the individuals that share them are exactly what they are, just as humanity is the form by which every man formally is a man. Unlike Wyclif, however, he does not think that universals exist in actu in the external world (see Alyngton, Litteralis sententia super Praedicamenta Aristotelis., ch. de substantia, in A.D. Conti, "Linguaggio e realtà nel commento alle Cate
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Similar

    Accidental forms inhere in individual substances, not directly in univ...84%Universal substantial forms are only related to accidental forms media...82%If at least one individual falling under a universal possesses a prope...80%Predication by essence allows a property to be indirectly attributed t...80%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit