Scotus's formal distinction, on which the real identity/formal non-identity framework depends, was rejected by Aquinas as introducing an illicit intermediate between real and conceptual distinctions.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Aquinas's binary framework (real vs. conceptual distinction) successfully explains divine attributes without multiplying entities or requiring intermediate categories.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Scotus's formal distinction risks treating divine perfections as genuinely distinct components, compromising divine simplicity that both theologians affirmed.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A third category between real and conceptual distinctions lacks clear metaphysical grounding and strains the principle of parsimony in explanation.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Aquinas's purely conceptual distinctions struggle to explain how divine attributes genuinely differ in creatures without implying the distinction is merely mental.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Scotus's formal distinction preserves scholastic commitments to both divine simplicity and the real distinction of perfections that Aquinas's framework under-captures.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Intermediate categories between binary poles are legitimate in metaphysics—intensity of being, degrees of actuality, and analogical predication exemplify successful thirds.
?
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.

Key Terms

Aquinas (Thomas Aquinas)(as the philosopher who rejected Scotus's theory): An earlier medieval philosopher (1225-1274) who was very influential in Christian philosophy and disagreed with some of Scotus's ideas.
Conceptual distinction(Contrasted with real distinction): A distinction in which one thing is considered from different perspectives or aspects, without implying real compositeness.
Formal non-identity(as the other side of the distinction framework): When two things are genuinely different in how we understand or define them, even if they're the same in reality.
Illicit intermediate(as Aquinas's criticism of the formal distinction): An unauthorized middle position—Aquinas thought Scotus was sneaking in a third type of distinction that didn't actually fit between the two legitimate kinds (real and conceptual).
Real identity(as one side of the distinction framework): When two things are literally the same thing in reality, not just similar—like how 'the morning star' and 'the evening star' are actually the same planet, Venus.
Scotus (John Duns Scotus)(The statement refers to his specific argument about knowledge): A medieval philosopher who developed arguments about how we know things, particularly about what counts as real knowledge versus just having beliefs.
formal distinction(Scotus's account of the relationship between nature and haecceity in a particular): A distinction between inseparable features that are nonetheless not identical — neither really distinct nor merely conceptually distinct

Connections

2 topics

Truth & Knowledge1 linked Philosophy of Language1 linked

A redefinition of the standard kinds of predication was required.A third category between real and conceptual distinctions lacks clear metaphysic...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit