Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Haecceities must be real — Carmelics

Home/Modality & Possibility

History Edit See Inverse

Haecceities must be real

Modality & Possibility Proof of definition segments

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

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Common natures are real
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Haecceities are what tie common natures to individuals
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.If common natures are real, then what ties common natures to individuals must be equally real
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Individuation can be fully explained by spatiotemporal location and bundle of properties, requiring no additional individuating entity.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Ockham's razor demands we not multiply entities beyond necessity when existing categories suffice to explain individuation.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

1.The inference from 'common natures are real' to 'what ties them to individuals must be equally real' commits a category error, since relational functions need not posit new ontological kinds.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Aquinas and Averroists held that matter itself, as designated quantity, serves as the principle of individuation without requiring a distinct haecceity.
?
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.

Topics

Modality & Possibility Proof of definition segments

Connections

1 topic

Personal Identity1 linked

Related

Aquinas and Averroists held that matter itself, as designated quantity, serves a...Common natures are real Haecceities are what tie common natures to individuals If common natures are real, then what ties common natures to individuals must be...

+3 moreShow less

Individuation can be fully explained by spatiotemporal location and bundle of pr...Ockham's razor demands we not multiply entities beyond necessity when existing c...The inference from 'common natures are real' to 'what ties them to individuals m...

Similar

Everything that is real is a fact86%Actualism holds that absolutely everything is actual.81%Time is unreal (proven in The Nature of Existence)80%Nothing is unreal (although something may not exist)78%

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: medieval-haecceity

View source passageHide passage

So Scotus holds that the explanations for indivisibility and distinction are the same. To understand why he supposes that this explanation needs to be something real, we need to keep in mind his account of the reality of common natures, outlined in the previous section, for the reality of common natures is a premise in Scotus’s defense of the existence of haecceities. Since such natures are real, Scotus reasons, the haecceities that tie such natures to individuals must be equally real too:

Extraction notes

Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit