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 Participation arguments establish only that creatures derive goodness *from* the One, not that the One *is* identical with Goodness itself.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Deriving goodness 'from' the One requires the One to be fundamentally good; otherwise, non-good sources could not yield genuinely good effects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between 'is Goodness' and 'possesses Goodness' collapses at the level of the One, since it cannot have properties it does not constitute.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If participation establishes the One as the source of all goodness, identity with Goodness follows as the most parsimonious explanation of its causal power.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Participation implies a relation between distinct relata: the One and participating creatures cannot be identical if one participates in the other.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the One were identical with Goodness, all goodness would be exhausted in the One, leaving no remainder for creatures to participate in.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Neoplatonic metaphysics requires the One to transcend all determinate properties, including the determination 'Goodness,' to preserve its absolute simplicity.
?
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.