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
    Aristotle's distinction between per se necessity and per ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Contingency per se can be understood without committing to causal indeterminism

    Aristotle's distinction between per se necessity and per accidens outcomes grounds a concept of contingency in the accidental concurrence of causal chains.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Per se necessity captures essential causal relations (e.g., heat melting wax), while per accidens describes incidental concurrences (doctor healing as patient).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's framework explains how two independent causal chains (doctor's knowledge, patient's presence) intersect by accident, generating genuine contingency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This distinction preserves both determinism in essential causes and openness in accidental outcomes, avoiding fatalism while maintaining causal order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The per se/per accidens boundary is conceptually unstable: what counts as 'essential' versus 'incidental' depends on chosen descriptions, not objective facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If accidental concurrences arise from independent per se chains, contingency is illusory—the outcome was determined once all component causes were fixed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern causation theory (event causation, causal networks) explains coincidence without invoking Aristotle's metaphysical distinction between necessity types.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Aristotle's framework explains how two independent causal chains (doctor's knowl...Contingency per se can be understood without committing to causal indeterminismIf accidental concurrences arise from independent per se chains, contingency is ...Modern causation theory (event causation, causal networks) explains coincidence ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Per se necessity captures essential causal relations (e.g., heat melting wax), w...The per se/per accidens boundary is conceptually unstable: what counts as 'essen...This distinction preserves both determinism in essential causes and openness in ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit