A New Argument for the Incompatibility of Hylomorphism and Metaphysical Naturalism
Within the substance ontology literature in recent analytic metaphysics, four principal theories are in competition: substratum theory, bundle theory, primitive substance theory, and hylomorphism. This paper is part of a larger project attempting to show that each of these four theories is incompati...
发表在: | Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association |
---|---|
主要作者: | |
格式: | 电子 文件 |
语言: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
出版: |
[2015]
|
In: |
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association
|
IxTheo Classification: | VA Philosophy |
Further subjects: | B
Hylomorphism
B Ontology B Realism B Metaphysics B Naturalism |
在线阅读: |
Volltext (doi) |
总结: | Within the substance ontology literature in recent analytic metaphysics, four principal theories are in competition: substratum theory, bundle theory, primitive substance theory, and hylomorphism. This paper is part of a larger project attempting to show that each of these four theories is incompatible with metaphysical naturalism (which of course creates a problem for that view, if indeed these four theories are the only potentially workable options). To that end, I explicate and defend the following argument: Premise 1: Prime matter either can exist on its own (unactualized by substantial form) or it cannot. Premise 2: If prime matter can exist on its own (unactualized by substantial form) then metaphysical naturalism is false. Premise 3: If prime matter cannot exist on its own (unactualized by substantial form) then metaphysical naturalism is false. Conclusion; Therefore, either way, metaphysical naturalism is false. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2153-7925 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: American Catholic Philosophical Association, Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5840/acpaproc20171357 |