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 substantial forms exist, then generality exists in nature — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Locke's claim that generality does not exist in nature begs the question against Aristotelianism

    If substantial forms exist, then generality exists in nature

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?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

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Assuming the falsity of substantial forms in an argument against substantial for...Locke's claim that generality does not exist in nature assumes substantial forms...Locke's claim that generality does not exist in nature begs the question against...

    Similar

    Locke's claim that generality does not exist in nature assumes substan...90%The existence of substantial forms need not entail the existence of ha...83%Locke's claim that generality does not exist in nature begs the questi...80%Universal substantial forms are only related to accidental forms media...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: real-essence
    View source passageHide passage
    By introducing the distinction between real and nominal essences and thereby dividing their roles, Locke has provided himself with a number of resources to criticize the Scholastic theory of species. There are, however, reasons to worry about the viability of these criticisms. After all, these arguments seem to beg the question against the Aristotelian tradition. The existence of substantial forms need not entail the existence of hard-edged natural kinds, and so Locke's 'moulds and forms' metaph

    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