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
    Equivocating on 'in' conflates participation (methexis) w... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→P7 follows from the combination of the result that no form is in humans and P6

    Equivocating on 'in' conflates participation (methexis) with immanence, undermining the inferential step to P7.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Methexis (participation) and immanence are metaphysically distinct: one involves transcendent Forms, the other denies them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using 'in' ambiguously between these concepts allows invalid inferences that wouldn't survive strict logical formalization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P7's derivation depends on precise mereological relations that equivocation on 'in' systematically obscures or invalidates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ancient philosophical language often used 'in' flexibly; conflation need not invalidate inferences if conclusions hold under both readings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between methexis and immanence may be less sharp than claimed—intermediate positions blur the binary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P7 might follow from the substantive content of both concepts regardless of 'in's ambiguity, making the critique linguistically misdirected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Ancient philosophical language often used 'in' flexibly; conflation need not inv...Methexis (participation) and immanence are metaphysically distinct: one involves...P7 follows from the combination of the result that no form is in humans and P6P7 might follow from the substantive content of both concepts regardless of 'in'...
    +3 moreShow less
    P7's derivation depends on precise mereological relations that equivocation on '...The distinction between methexis and immanence may be less sharp than claimed—in...Using 'in' ambiguously between these concepts allows invalid inferences that wou...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit