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
    The proposition 'homo est animal' would still be true eve... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The proposition 'homo est animal' would still be true even if no human being actually existed outside the soul.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.'Animal' is predicated of 'human being' in virtue of the common nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Predications of common nature do not require actual individual existence to be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Truth requires a truthmaker: for 'homo est animal' to be true, something in reality must ground the predication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no humans exist outside the soul, no extramental nature exists to serve as truthmaker for the essential connection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition whose truthmaker exists only within cognition is not true simpliciter but only intentionally or conceptually true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham's razor demands we not posit common natures as real entities distinct from individual substances and minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'common nature' names only a concept in the soul, 'homo est animal' reduces to a relation between mental terms, not a mind-independent truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition expressing only a relation between mental terms cannot be true independently of the existence of minds entertaining it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    'Animal' is predicated of 'human being' in virtue of the common nature.A proposition expressing only a relation between mental terms cannot be true ind...A proposition whose truthmaker exists only within cognition is not true simplici...If 'common nature' names only a concept in the soul, 'homo est animal' reduces t...
    +4 moreShow less
    If no humans exist outside the soul, no extramental nature exists to serve as tr...Ockham's razor demands we not posit common natures as real entities distinct fro...Predications of common nature do not require actual individual existence to be t...Truth requires a truthmaker: for 'homo est animal' to be true, something in real...

    Similar

    When a predicate belongs necessarily to the nature of the subject (e.g...80%The essential predication 'man is an animal' is true even if no men ex...79%'Man is an animal' is true even when no real man exists.78%The proposition that man necessarily is or is conceived of as animal i...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: robert-kilwardby
    View source passageHide passage
    The actual existence of things outside the soul is not always required for a (affirmative) proposition (here understood as a statement-making sentence) to be true (NLP II.7, 381). Nonbeing can be understood as being not yet actual but in potency only, that is, that has an aptitude to exist in actuality.[24] About those things that can but do not yet exist outside the soul, existence is taken to refer to the (common) nature and not to the individual (NLP II.7, 379): when animal is predicated of
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit