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
    P7 follows from the combination of the result that no for... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    P7 follows from the combination of the result that no form is in humans and P6

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Y is a form, then Y is not in humans
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P6
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P6 concerns predication structure, not spatial containment, so 'in humans' shifts meaning between P6 and the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Equivocating on 'in' conflates participation (methexis) with immanence, undermining the inferential step to P7.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's immanent universals (Metaphysics Z) show forms can be genuinely present in particulars without being wholly consumed by them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a defensible alternative allows forms to be 'in' things in a qualified sense, the premise 'no form is in humans' requires additional argument beyond what P6 supplies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Aristotle's immanent universals (Metaphysics Z) show forms can be genuinely pres...Equivocating on 'in' conflates participation (methexis) with immanence, undermin...If Y is a form, then Y is not in humansIf a defensible alternative allows forms to be 'in' things in a qualified sense,...
    +2 moreShow less
    P6P6 concerns predication structure, not spatial containment, so 'in humans' shift...

    Similar

    If Y is a form, then Y is not in humans88%Whatever is in humans is not a form.87%No form is in humans86%Whatever is in humans is not a form (derived from Separation and P1).85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    Now, by P1, anything that is itself by itself is not in humans, and, by Separation, every form is itself by itself. Hence P1 and Separation entail that no form is in humans, i.e., that if Y is a form, then Y is not in humans. This result, taken together with P6, entails P7:
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit