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 P7 follows from the combination of the result that no form is in humans and P6
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
P6 concerns predication structure, not spatial containment, so 'in humans' shifts meaning between P6 and the conclusion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Equivocating on 'in' conflates participation (methexis) with immanence, undermining the inferential step to P7.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Aristotle's immanent universals (Metaphysics Z) show forms can be genuinely present in particulars without being wholly consumed by them.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If Y is a form, then Y is not in humans
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
P6
?
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.