Final answer:
Medieval philosophers would consider 'human' to be neither essential nor accidental as a predicate of 'animal.' Immanuel Kant posited that existence is not a predicate. Medieval logic would seek more general predicates encompassing entire subject groups.
Step-by-step explanation:
Medieval philosophers, when addressing the proposition 'Animal is human', would indeed find issues as 'human' is neither essential nor accidental to 'animal.' The challenge here arises because the conception of an animal includes all living creatures that move and breathe but is not confined only to humans. Thus, making 'human' a predicate of 'animal' is conceptually inaccurate, as it doesn't apply to all animals. A conceptually broader predicate would be more appropriate in predication.
Immanuel Kant, contradicting Anselm's view, argued that existence is not a predicate that can transform the concept of an entity. For Kant, asserting something exists does not alter the conception of the subject. This is an essential distinction, as it underscores the importance of predicates in clarifying statements without conferring existence. Conceptual analysis aids in identifying accurate predicates and determining their relationships with subjects. This relatedness underpins how predicates amplify the essence of a subject without asserting its actual existence.
Medieval thought would align with the notion of seeking a conceptual hierarchy where predicates must be as general as possible, ideally encompassing all instances of the subject. For example, stating 'animal breathes' applies to the entire group of animals, including humans, fitting more accurately within medieval logic systems.