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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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