Suárez's formal distinction critique holds that Scotus illegitimately reifies modal distinctions into quasi-subjective parts within individuals, conflating logical and real division.
?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.
Scotus, John Duns(The philosopher whose theory Suárez is criticizing)
A medieval philosopher from Scotland (1200s-1300s) who argued that even though things are physically unified, their different qualities and properties are genuinely distinct in some way.
Suárez, Francisco(The philosopher whose critique is being discussed)
A Spanish philosopher from the 1500s-1600s who developed influential theories about how things exist and what distinguishes them from each other.
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
individuals(metaphysical nihilism about objects)
Dasgupta's term for objects, understood as the entities nihilism denies
modal distinctions(as used in metaphysics)
The philosophical differences between what is necessarily true (must be true), what is possibly true (could be true), and what is actually true.