Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aristotle's hylomorphism allows a thing to possess a property by instantiating a form, not by containing a piece of an external entity (Metaphysics VII).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The notion of 'instantiating a form' is itself unclear and arguably relocates rather than solves the problem of how properties inhere in objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Empirically, properties like color depend on matter's composition and light interaction, suggesting material content does matter to property possession.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle's distinction between form and matter blurs in practice; secondary substances seem parasitic on material facts rather than independent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Forms are intrinsic to substances in hylomorphism, avoiding infinite regress problems that plague externalist accounts of property possession.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aristotle's framework explains why objects can share properties without sharing material parts, solving the problem of universals elegantly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Instantiation of form preserves object unity and persistence through change better than composition from external material entities.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42