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 Esse signifies pure act without suppositum, while id quod est signifies a subsistent subject that has being, making them categorically distinct.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If esse is 'pure act without suppositum,' it becomes unintelligible—acts require bearers; pure actuality without substrate is conceptually incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates logical distinction with categorical distinction; esse and id quod est may differ analytically without categorical separation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
In creatures, being (esse) and what-has-being (id quod est) are inseparably instantiated together; categorical distinctness overstates their metaphysical separation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Esse as pure act must be categorically distinct from id quod est because act and subject are fundamentally different modes of existing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Subsistent subjects require a principle of individuation that pure act (as infinite) cannot possess, marking essential categorical difference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classical metaphysics distinguishes actuality from the substrate receiving it; esse and id quod est reflect this foundational distinction.
?
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.