Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The principle that nothing moves toward its own destruction applies to substances, but motion is a mode, not a substance with self-preservation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The distinction between substance and mode may be ontologically unstable—modes might be partially constitutive of substance identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If motion exhibits lawful patterns and resistance to change, it possesses functional self-preservation regardless of categorical status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Why should non-substances be exempt from natural laws? The principle might apply universally or to neither category equally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Substances possess intrinsic natures that resist their own dissolution, making self-destruction metaphysically incoherent for them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modes are dependent properties lacking independent existence, so they cannot possess the teleological drive to self-preserve.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A mode like motion derives its continuation from external substances, not from any internal principle opposing destruction.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42