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 identification of perfect being with changelessness presupposes a Parmenidean-Platonic ontology in which becoming is inferior to static being.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Immutability appears incompatible with omniscience: a timeless being cannot have knowledge of temporal, contingent events as they occur.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Creative activity (a perfection) essentially involves temporal becoming; a static being cannot create or respond to anything.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Modern physics and philosophy reject the assumption that becoming is ontologically inferior; change and process are fundamental features of reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Change involves dependency on external causes, implying imperfection and lack of self-sufficiency characteristic of perfect being.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporal becoming implies potential and incompleteness; perfect being must be fully actual with no unrealized potentialities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The Parmenidean principle that only being truly exists remains logically compelling: becoming seems to require non-being.
?
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.