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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Philosophy must revive something like the Aristotelian notion of a substantial form

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Causal powers ontology (Molnar, Bird) grounds dispositional properties in objects without invoking substantial forms as metaphysically primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If irreducible causal activity can be explained by fundamental dispositions inhering in properties rather than substances, substantial forms are explanatorily superfluous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Humean regularity accounts and their neo-Humean successors (Lewis's Best Systems Analysis) reconstruct causal talk without committing to intrinsic categorical or formal essences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The conceptual work Aristotelian substantial forms were designed to do—grounding identity, change, and natural kinds—is accomplished by modal structuralism and natural kind essentialism (Kripke, Putnam) without the hylomorphic apparatus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Preserving the notion of causal activity requires that substances are truly fundamental building blocks of reality
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Substances cannot be truly fundamental building blocks of reality without something like a substantial form
      ?

      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.