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 Universals exist extra animam and in act in individuals, being really identical with but formally distinct from them, and can be signified by various linguistic expressions

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The formal distinction between a universal and an individual requires two distinct ontological grounds, collapsing into real distinction (Ockham, Summa Logicae I.16).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If universality and individuality are formally distinct in re, then one entity simultaneously instantiates contradictory modes of being without a principium individuationis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ockham's razor demands that universal reference be explained by mental concepts and conventional signs alone, without positing extra-mental formal distinctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's context principle establishes that meaning is determined by inferential role in propositional contexts, not by correspondence to extra-mental universal entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'homo', 'humanitas', and 'hominem esse' signify the same extra-mental universal, their logical and grammatical divergences cannot be explained by the object signified but only by semantic structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Universals exist extra animam and in act in individuals
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Universals are really (realiter) identical with individuals
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Universals are formally (formaliter vel secundum rationem) distinct from individuals
      ?

      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.