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 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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