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 'homo' signified a common nature existing in re, two h... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The term 'homo' is properly common.

    If 'homo' signified a common nature existing in re, two humans would share a numerically identical entity, generating the absurdity of one thing being in two places.

    ?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.Numerical identity requires being in one place at one time; shared natures would violate this principle of non-ubiquity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If humanity exists as a single entity in Socrates and Plato, it must either be wholly in each or partially distributed, both absurd.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Medieval nominalists observed that only particular instances exist concretely; universals in re face mereological impossibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Abstract entities (like numbers) aren't spatially located; common natures needn't obey spatial uniqueness constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotelian forms exist as immanent universals in particulars without being literally multiplied—one essence, multiply instantiated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument equivocates 'being in two places' with 'existing in multiple individuals'; these are logically distinct phenomena.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Abstract entities (like numbers) aren't spatially located; common natures needn'...Aristotelian forms exist as immanent universals in particulars without being lit...If humanity exists as a single entity in Socrates and Plato, it must either be w...Medieval nominalists observed that only particular instances exist concretely; u...
    +3 moreShow less
    Numerical identity requires being in one place at one time; shared natures would...The argument equivocates 'being in two places' with 'existing in multiple indivi...The term 'homo' is properly common.

    Details

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