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
    Some additional unity beyond formal unity must belong to ... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Common natures possess a proper numerical unity of their own that cannot be communicated to their instantiations.

    Some additional unity beyond formal unity must belong to the nature absolutely and unqualifiedly.

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments

    Related

    Common natures have formal unity (indivisibility into further specific kinds, co...Common natures possess a proper numerical unity of their own that cannot be comm...Formal unity alone is insufficient to account for the oneness of a nature as a s...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Common natures have formal unity (indivisibility into further specific...87%Something must be added to the nature beyond that unity for the nature...85%If formal unity were the only unity belonging to the nature, there wou...84%Possessing true unity is sufficient for being a real being in the rele...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: medieval-haecceity
    View source passageHide passage
    Fonseca is convinced of the reality of haecceities because he accepts the view that common natures have in themselves a certain sort of unity prior to instantiation. Fonseca proposes that, in order to have real existence, something needs to be added to the nature – a haecceity (Fonseca, In Met. V, c. 28, q. 3, sect. 4 [Fonseca (1599), vol. 2, col. 966A]). Again, Fonseca’s discussion is informed by the criticisms of Cajetan, though in this case the position that Cajetan adopts on the question of

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective