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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The Scholastic tradition from Avicenna through Duns Scotus consistently treats transcendentals as maximally common, making commonality constitutive, not accidental, to their transcendental status.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Thomas Aquinas treats transcendentals as convertible with being yet maintains their commonality is analogical, not univocal, challenging strict constitutive readings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Late medieval nominalists successfully questioned whether maximal commonality requires transcendental status, severing the claimed necessary connection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Avicenna's doctrine that existence and essence are distinct in creatures requires a concept (being) that applies across all categories without limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Duns Scotus explicitly argues transcendentals like 'being' and 'one' cannot be genus or differentia, proving their status depends on maximal applicability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If transcendentals were accidentally common rather than essentially so, their universality would be contingent and fail to ground metaphysical necessity.
      ?

      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.