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 Therefore, the inference from simplicity to strict immutability presupposes a Platonic, not a theistically neutral, conception of perfection.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Immutability can be defended on non-Platonic grounds: as divine atemporality, necessity of God's nature, or freedom from external causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Simplicity as a doctrine is independent of what counts as 'perfect'—it constrains metaphysical structure, not normative ideals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Theistic traditions have consistently combined simplicity with responsiveness through distinctions (real/conceptual, intrinsic/relational) without Platonism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Platonic perfection identifies perfection with eternal, unchanging Form; theistic neutrality allows perfection compatible with responsive action.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Simplicity arguments for immutability rely on the assumption that change implies composition; this assumption reflects Platonic metaphysics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A theistically neutral account could ground perfection in relational properties, allowing a simple being to respond without logical contradiction.
?
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.