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
    For simples, there is no distinction between the thing an... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The process of defining objects through their constituents must terminate at simples, which admit of no further definition

    For simples, there is no distinction between the thing and the answer to 'what is it?', so no further definition is possible

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Each definition of X spells X out into constituents, and each constituent can in...If X is simple, 'X is' cannot be unpacked into a judgment with distinct subject ...The process of defining objects through their constituents must terminate at sim...

    Similar

    If X is simple, 'X is' cannot be unpacked into a judgment with distinc...75%The something-or-other must be a kind concept that answers 'what is it...75%There is no such thing as what is not the case; it is a mere nonentity74%It is possible to understand what something is (its essence) without k...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    In all of this Fârâbî is broadly following the Aristotelian idea that, for any composite object X, we can ask “what is X?” and answer the question either by giving a definition of X spelling X out into many in-some-sense-constituents of X, or by giving some one such constituent of X, which is a partial answer to “what is X?”.[28] Fârâbî is also following Aristotle in insisting that all of the things which should be mentioned in the definition of X are causes of X’s being (“the thing by which [

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective