Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that An 'incomplete substance' that combines with others to form a perfected substance is not a substance at all, but a part—contradicting hylomorphic categories.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Incompleteness and substantiality are distinct properties; a substance can be incomplete in actualization while remaining substantial in essence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Parts (like a brick) retain identity independently; matter and form as metaphysical principles are categorically different from physical components.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hylomorphism permits substantial principles that are incomplete—actuality completion differs from ontological dependence on physical composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Substances by definition possess independent existence; anything requiring completion through composition is ontologically dependent, hence not substantial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Parts are defined as constituents that lose identity when separated; if matter and form cannot exist independently, they are parts, not substances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle's hylomorphism requires the composite (form+matter) to be the substance; incomplete principles cannot simultaneously be substances.
?
How convincing is this?
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.