Aquinas and Scotus both argue that essential predication admits degrees of necessity, so 'on account of what they are' underdetermines which essentialist claims license demonstration.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Provide sufficient grounds or justification for a logical proof or rigorous argument that something must be true.
On account of what they are(as a technical philosophical phrase)
A Latin-influenced phrase meaning 'because of their essential nature' or 'by virtue of what something fundamentally is.'
Scotus(The philosopher whose reasoning is being analyzed)
A medieval philosopher (John Duns Scotus, 1266-1308) known for his detailed logical arguments about God, free will, and how things exist.
essential predication(Distinguished from accidental and intentional predication by having quiddities as truth-makers.)
Predication in which the predicate expresses a definitional or quidditative part of the subject's essence, independent of whether instances of the subject actually exist.
underdetermines(logic and language)
Doesn't fully decide or pin down; leaves open multiple possible interpretations because there isn't enough information visible to choose just one.