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
    Shared natures cannot explain the individuation of partic... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Shared natures cannot explain the individuation of particular things

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All things of a given kind share the same nature in some sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A shared nature is common to multiple individuals and therefore cannot distinguish one individual from another
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A shared nature can individuate by being instantiated in numerically distinct portions of matter at distinct spatiotemporal locations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aquinas's hylomorphic account grounds individuation in designated matter (materia signata), which is a mode of the shared nature, not an addition external to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If matter-as-individuator is itself analyzable within the shared nature framework, the claim that shared natures cannot explain individuation is defeated from within the tradition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scotus's formal distinction shows that individuality can be a real but non-numerical contraction of a common nature, not a wholly separate principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the haecceity is itself a formal aspect continuous with the shared nature rather than ontologically alien to it, the dichotomy between shared natures and individuation collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    A shared nature can individuate by being instantiated in numerically distinct po...A shared nature is common to multiple individuals and therefore cannot distingui...All things of a given kind share the same nature in some senseAquinas's hylomorphic account grounds individuation in designated matter (materi...
    +3 moreShow less
    If matter-as-individuator is itself analyzable within the shared nature framewor...If the haecceity is itself a formal aspect continuous with the shared nature rat...Scotus's formal distinction shows that individuality can be a real but non-numer...

    Similar

    Explaining individuation means explaining how a multiplicity of indivi...83%Accidental or qualitative features cannot explain individuation83%The relationship between common natures and singulars is ultimately ba...82%Hyperextensional individuation requires some base from which objects a...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: medieval-haecceity
    View source passageHide passage
    Given the huge problems that an account of haecceities seems to raise, it is worth seeing just why Scotus believes he needs to accept this view of individuation as opposed to a rival one. Scotus defends haecceities by rejecting all alternative theories of individuation known to him. Rejecting qualitative theories is easy for the scholastics. Suppose that all things of a given kind in some sense share the same nature. The nature as such cannot explain individuation. So the explanation must be som
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit