Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that No person is a property instance—not God, not me, not Socrates.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Bundle theory (Hume, Russell) holds that concrete individuals just are clusters of co-instantiated properties, not substances distinct from them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If bundle theory is correct, a person just is a property instance or set thereof, undermining the premise that persons are categorically distinct from property instances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Platonist theologians like Plotinus identify the One with the Form of the Good, treating the highest being as identical to a universal or pure actuality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If divine simplicity requires God to be identical to His own nature, and natures are abstract property-like entities, then God's mode of existence may be sui generis and not governed by the concrete/abstract distinction that applies to creatures like Socrates.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Concrete individuals cannot be identified with property instances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Persons (including God) are concrete individuals.
?
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.