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 relationship between common natures and singulars is ultimately based on individuation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Universals can be ontologically prior to their instances, as Plato's Forms demonstrate a reality independent of individuated particulars.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Scotus's formal distinction allows common natures their own haecceity-independent reality, meaning individuation presupposes rather than grounds the nature.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
No actual universality is possible without individuation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
No instantiation is possible without individuation.
?
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.