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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If formal unity were the only unity belonging to the natu... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Humanity must be said to be one species, not many natures or species, and this requires a unity in the common nature beyond formal unity.

    If formal unity were the only unity belonging to the nature, there would be no basis for asserting that humanity is just one species rather than many.

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments
    ?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

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Personal Identity
    1 linked

    Related

    Formal unity is compatible with division of a common nature into numerically man...Humanity must be said to be one species, not many natures or species, and this r...We do correctly assert that humanity is one species.

    Similar

    Formal unity alone is insufficient to account for the oneness of a nat...91%Humanity must be said to be one species, not many natures or species, ...89%Some additional unity beyond formal unity must belong to the nature ab...84%Common natures have formal unity (indivisibility into further specific...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: medieval-haecceity
    View source passageHide passage
    Fonseca is convinced of the reality of haecceities because he accepts the view that common natures have in themselves a certain sort of unity prior to instantiation. Fonseca proposes that, in order to have real existence, something needs to be added to the nature – a haecceity (Fonseca, In Met. V, c. 28, q. 3, sect. 4 [Fonseca (1599), vol. 2, col. 966A]). Again, Fonseca’s discussion is informed by the criticisms of Cajetan, though in this case the position that Cajetan adopts on the question of

    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