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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Inter-substantial causation cannot be explained by influx theory, because Leibnizian substances lack the requisite parts through which something could pass from one substance to another.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Influx theory can only explain causal relations between entities that have parts, since it is through parts that something passes from one thing into another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibnizian substances do not have parts in the requisite sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibnizian monads are simple, indivisible, and windowless, possessing no parts through which any inflowing quality or force could enter or exit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Influx theory, as articulated by scholastic predecessors like Suárez, requires a real physical or metaphysical conduit between substances for causal transmission.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without such conduits, influx theory cannot distinguish genuine inter-substantial causation from mere correlational succession between monadic states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle that 'monads have no windows' entails that no accident or property can migrate from one substance to another, which is precisely what influx theory demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any apparent causal influence between substances must therefore be grounded in pre-established harmony rather than real transmission, rendering influx theory explanatorily idle for Leibnizian metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.