If essences can be understood as indifferent to existence — as Avicenna and Scotus also argued — then the difference between instantiated and uninstantiated natures is not a difference within being but a difference between being and its absence.

?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 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Avicenna: Avicenna was a Persian philosopher and physician from around 1000 CE who became one of the most influential thinkers in history. He wrote extensively about logic, medicine, and metaphysics (the nature of reality), bridging Islamic and European thought during the Middle Ages. His medical encyclopedia was so respected that it remained the standard textbook in European universities for hundreds of years, and his philosophical ideas shaped how scholars in both the Islamic world and Europe understood knowledge and existence.
Scotus(The philosopher whose reasoning is being analyzed): A medieval philosopher (John Duns Scotus, 1266-1308) known for his detailed logical arguments about God, free will, and how things exist.
Uninstantiated natures(in metaphysics): Qualities or characteristics that don't actually exist in the real world but can still be thought about — like a perfect unicorn that only exists in imagination.
being(Aristotle's rejection of being as a genus): The class that contains all and only things that exist; proposed candidate for a highest kind.
essences(as used in metaphysics): The core qualities or properties that make something what it fundamentally is—like 'being a dog' is part of what makes a dog a dog, rather than a cat.
instantiated(as used in metaphysics and logic): Made real or brought into existence as an actual example; like when a concept becomes a real thing you can observe.

1 linked claim · 1 topic