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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.