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 Predication with respect to quiddity must be of a composite being.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Absolute simplicity in God entails that divine quiddity is identical to divine esse, admitting no real distinction between subject and form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Where quiddity and existence are identical, the predicative structure presupposing a 'that' distinct from 'this' collapses into self-predication, not composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aquinas's doctrine of subsistent esse in God demonstrates that quidditative predication can be self-grounding without requiring a composite substrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scotus's formal distinction allows real differences between aspects of a simple being without introducing ontological composition in the Aristotelian sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If formally distinct quidditative determinations can inhere in a numerically simple entity, the inference from predicative structure to compositeness fails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Quiddity answers the question 'why this of that?', requiring a 'that' of which 'this' is predicated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For the question 'why this?' to be meaningful, there must be a distinct 'that' to which 'this' belongs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This structure of predication requires composition — a subject ('that') and its formal determination ('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.