If no formal distinction separates the First's essence from its causal activity, then the First's causal relations to radically different effects are inexplicable by appeal to essence alone.

?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

Causal activity(metaphysics): The power or action of something to make other things happen or come into being.
Radically different effects(metaphysics): Results or outcomes that are fundamentally unlike each other in nature, not just in degree.
causal relations(Davidson's distinction between causal and logical relations): Relations that obtain between events themselves, independent of how those events are described
essence(Medieval realist metaphysics): The defining nature of a species, held by some to be distinct from and capable of surviving the destruction of all individual members of that species
formal distinction(Scotus's account of the relationship between nature and haecceity in a particular): A distinction between inseparable features that are nonetheless not identical — neither really distinct nor merely conceptually distinct
inexplicable(as used in general philosophical reasoning): Impossible to explain or account for logically; something that shouldn't be able to happen given what we think we know.
the First(Fârâbî's metaphysics of the first principle): The ultimate first cause whose essence is identical with that by which it knows and by which other things arise from it; it cannot be affected or moved, and requires nothing beyond its own essence to produce its initial effect

2 topics