Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Matter and form must be mentioned in any full explanation of the world's workings.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Modern physics explains the world's workings through fields, forces, and mathematical structures with no reference to Aristotelian matter or form.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If a complete scientific explanation of phenomena requires no appeal to matter-form composition, then matter and form are not necessary components of full explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Kant demonstrated that form is a contribution of the mind's structuring activity, not an intrinsic feature of mind-independent reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If form is epistemically imposed rather than ontologically discovered, then Premise 1 of the supporting argument is false, and the inference to necessity collapses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Matter and form are mind-independent features of the world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Any full explanation of the world must account for mind-independent features of the world.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42