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 Crescas can accept Abner's critiques of Aristotelian science without accepting Abner's theological conclusions.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Abner's theological conclusions follow necessarily from his rejection of Aristotelian hylomorphism, not merely from his property-body separation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Crescas's alternative distinction between properties and matter still dismantles the hylomorphic framework that grounds Aristotelian natural theology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without hylomorphic form as an explanatory principle, Crescas cannot avoid the same theological vacuum Abner's critique created.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Spinoza's Ethics demonstrates that anti-Aristotelian physics systematically entails a necessitarian God incompatible with orthodox Jewish theology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Crescas's own infinite-plenum cosmology, which echoes his anti-Aristotelian commitments, pushes toward divine necessitarianism that Abner would recognize as his own conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theological implications Crescas sought to avoid were latent in the physical premises he retained, not in the property-body distinction he rejected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Abner's philosophical arguments rely on separating properties from bodies entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Crescas instead distinguishes properties from matter alone, not from bodies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This alternative grounding preserves the anti-Aristotelian critique while blocking the theological implications Abner derived.
      ?

      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.