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
    If matter cannot differ in kind, incorruptibility cannot ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Celestial bodies are incorruptible not because their matter differs in kind from sublunar matter, but because their quantitas materiae cannot change its determinate dimensions

    If matter cannot differ in kind, incorruptibility cannot derive from a peculiar nature of celestial matter

    CausationModality & Possibility
    ?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 & PossibilityCausation

    Related

    Celestial bodies are incorruptible not because their matter differs in kind from...Matter is pure potentiality and therefore cannot be distinguished into different...The quantitas materiae of celestial bodies remains fixed in its determinate dime...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Celestial bodies are incorruptible not because their matter differs in...81%If we truly understood the nature of matter, we might be unable to con...77%If matter's nonexistence is inconceivable given full understanding, th...77%Therefore, the divisibility of matter derives from the separability of...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: giles
    View source passageHide passage
    As to the debate about the unicity of substantial form, Giles’ position evolves during time. If we leave aside the Errores philosophorum, since the authenticity of this work has been contested with serious arguments (Bruni 1935, Koch 1944, Donati 1990b, Luna 1990), we can notice that Giles changes his position from the Contra gradus et pluralitatem formarum (between the end of 1277 and the beginning of 1278), where he, against Henry of Ghent denies plurality of forms for every compound (Wilson 2

    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