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 The assumption that distinct and incommunicable intellectual acts and volitional acts are necessary conditions for being a person should be rejected.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
This assumption is an ungrounded modern assumption.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
2 perspectives
Reason against 1 of 2
?
1.
Boethius defined person as 'an individual substance of a rational nature,' grounding personhood in substance rather than discrete acts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aquinas, following Boethius, located personal identity in subsistent relations, not in numerically distinct cognitive or volitional episodes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If the Boethian-Thomistic tradition grounds personhood without requiring incommunicable acts, the assumption in question lacks historical necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason against 2 of 2
?
1.
Contemporary analytic philosophers like Brian Leftow argue that a single locus of consciousness can ground multiple personal distinctions via functional roles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If functional-role differentiation suffices for personal distinction, numerically distinct intellectual and volitional acts are not necessary conditions for personhood.
?
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.