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 Pure perfections are not coextensive with being.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Thomistic metaphysics holds that being is analogical, not univocal, so 'being' already implies graduated perfection across all entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If being is intrinsically analogical, then a being's degree of perfection is constitutive of its mode of being, making perfection coextensive with being by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scotus's counterexample about earthworms presupposes univocal being, which an Thomistic analogist would deny as the relevant framework for assessing coextensiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Neoplatonic emanationism, as in Plotinus's Enneads, treats all being as a graduated participation in the One, which is identical with absolute perfection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If every being exists precisely insofar as it participates in perfection, then the extension of being and the extension of perfection necessarily coincide, differing only in degree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Earthworms, on this account, do not lack wisdom absolutely but instantiate it deficiently, which is compatible with wisdom being coextensive with being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God is wise and Socrates is wise, but earthworms are not wise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Earthworms are beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If wisdom were coextensive with being, all beings including earthworms would be wise.
      ?

      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.