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
    Locke's borderline cases argument against substantial for... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Locke's borderline cases argument against substantial forms fails

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Aristotelian matter/form distinction allows that the form guides changes in material substances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not all matter is suitable for all changes guided by a form
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When matter is unsuitable to achieve the end of the formal cause, the result can be monsters and deformities rather than a counterexample to the existence of substantial forms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    2 topics

    Causation3 linkedModality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    Not all matter is suitable for all changes guided by a formThe Aristotelian matter/form distinction allows that the form guides changes in ...When matter is unsuitable to achieve the end of the formal cause, the result can...

    Similar

    Assuming the falsity of substantial forms in an argument against subst...82%Scholastic substantial forms are problematic as unobservables.78%Purity-F holds: a form cannot have contrary properties.75%Locke's 'moulds and forms' metaphor does not damage the Aristotelian p...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit