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 If Aristotelian immanent forms are coherent, then 'being itself by itself' is not a necessary condition for being a form.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Forms must be fully intelligible objects of thought; whatever lacks self-subsistence depends on external conditions for its being.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If forms need matter to exist, they lack the necessity and universality that classical metaphysics attributes to formal principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Immanence without self-sufficiency makes forms parasitic on matter, undermining their status as genuine explanatory principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Aristotelian forms inhere in particulars as principles of intelligibility, requiring no independent subsistence apart from matter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Immanent forms causally explain properties of individual substances, a role that doesn't require transcendent self-subsistence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Being 'by itself' applies to substances, not forms; forms exist as actualizers within composite beings, not as separate entities.
?
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.