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 relationship between common natures and singulars is ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The relationship between common natures and singulars is ultimately based on individuation.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.No actual universality is possible without individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No instantiation is possible without individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Universals can be ontologically prior to their instances, as Plato's Forms demonstrate a reality independent of individuated particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If common natures possess intrinsic formal unity before any act of individuation, the relationship to singulars is grounded in participation, not individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scotus's formal distinction allows common natures their own haecceity-independent reality, meaning individuation presupposes rather than grounds the nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A relation cannot be ultimately grounded in a process that logically and ontologically succeeds the relata it is meant to explain.
      ?

      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

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    A relation cannot be ultimately grounded in a process that logically and ontolog...If common natures possess intrinsic formal unity before any act of individuation...No actual universality is possible without individuation.No instantiation is possible without individuation.
    +2 moreShow less
    Scotus's formal distinction allows common natures their own haecceity-independen...Universals can be ontologically prior to their instances, as Plato's Forms demon...

    Similar

    Explaining individuation means explaining how a multiplicity of indivi...82%Shared natures cannot explain the individuation of particular things82%What allows a common nature to be divided into subjective parts is its...82%Common natures have formal unity (indivisibility into further specific...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sharpe
    View source passageHide passage
    As a result, Sharpe’s world consists of finite beings (that is, “things” like men, horses, stones etc.), really existing outside the mind, made up of an individual substance and a host of formal entities (common substantial natures and accidental forms, both universal and singular) existing in it and through it, since none of these formal entities can exist by themselves. They are real only insofar as they constitute individual substances or are present in individual substances qua their propert
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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