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 Without a forma corporeitatis, Scotus has no alternative formal principle to ground the post-mortem persistence of organs as genuine substances.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Scotus may ground post-mortem organs in divine conservation of their matter plus accidental dispositions, not requiring a forma corporeitatis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim assumes substances must have formal principles; Scotus's mereology might allow genuine substance-status through composition alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scotus's doctrine of virtual distinction permits organ-matter and form to remain unified without a distinct forma corporeitatis after death.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Scotus rejects substantial forms as primitive metaphysical posits; without forma corporeitatis, no formal principle remains to unify organ matter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Post-mortem organs require metaphysical grounding as substances, not mere aggregates; Scotus lacks an alternative principle to provide this.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scotus's haecceity explains individual identity but not substantial persistence; it cannot substitute for a corporeal form's unifying function.
?
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.