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 Aristotle's own response in Metaphysics I.9 treats self-predication as an equivocation: forms are not large in the same sense as sensible particulars.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If forms are large in a wholly different sense, it becomes unclear how sensible things 'participate' in forms—similarity requires some shared meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Equivocation appears ad hoc; Plato's theory should explain self-predication directly rather than explaining it away through linguistic ambiguity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Forms are supposed to be paradigms that clarify the nature of properties in particulars; equivocation undermines this explanatory role.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Forms must differ in nature from particulars; otherwise the theory fails to explain participation and the Form-particular distinction collapses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Equivocation resolves the Third Man argument by showing self-predication doesn't create infinite regress when 'large' means different things.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle's own ontology treats substances differently than accidents, supporting the view that predication varies across categories.
?
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.