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 Disjunctions such as infinite-or-finite and necessary-or-contingent are transcendentals.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition hold that transcendentals are convertible with being and express positive perfections, not logical disjunctions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Logical disjunctions are features of propositions and concepts, not real properties inhering in being as such.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Admitting disjunctive transcendentals collapses the distinction between formal ontology and propositional logic, undermining the metaphysical foundation of the transcendental project.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Transcendentals must apply to every being without exception, but disjunctive predicates permit each member to apply only to some beings.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A predicate coextensive with being only as a disjunction fails the univocity requirement that grounds Scotus's own transcendental theory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Scotus identifies an indefinite number of disjunctions that are coextensive with being.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Whatever is coextensive with being counts as a transcendental.
?
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.