Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Singular terms like 'Socrates' signify individual substances directly, and 'homo' similarly picks out concrete individuals, not universals.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
'Homo' applies to infinitely many individuals across time; no single concrete particular can be the direct referent of such terms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If 'homo' signifies only individuals, the truth conditions of 'Socrates is a homo' remain unexplained—predication requires universal content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We can meaningfully discuss what makes something human (essential properties) independently of any particular human; this indicates universal reference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Names like 'Socrates' have determinate reference only to particular individuals, not to abstract universal properties or essences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Common nouns like 'homo' function in language by picking out the concrete particulars that instantiate them in the world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Medieval semantics (Aquinas, Ockham) successfully explained predication without positing abstract universals as separate entities.
?
How convincing is 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.