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 Aquinas in De Veritate explicitly grounds transcendentals in their convertibility, which presupposes equal extension across all beings.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Convertibility means mutual predication, not necessarily identical extension—finite beings might exemplify transcendentals differently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aquinas distinguishes analogy from univocity; analogical terms share meaning without requiring equal presence across all domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
De Veritate addresses created/uncreated being asymmetrically, suggesting transcendentals admit degrees of participation, not equal extension.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Convertibility (being↔truth, being↔goodness) logically requires coextensive application across all beings without exception.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aquinas's metaphysics requires unified principles; unequal extension would fragment being into incommensurable domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
De Veritate Q.1 establishes truth as transcendental precisely by denying genus-level restrictions, implying universal scope.
?
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.