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 A counterexample to strong individual supervenience involving individuals with contested cross-world identity cannot be straightforwardly re-described as a failure of global supervenience without begging the question against Haecceitist ontologies.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If haecceitist identity conditions are coherent, they should be expressible within the base properties that ground global supervenience, making the distinction merely notational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates metaphysical questions about identity with epistemological questions about how to describe counterexamples; these require separate treatment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strong individual supervenience's failure can be diagnosed without invoking cross-world identity disputes—appeal to bare identity is already metaphysically suspect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Haecceitist theories posit that individuals have essential properties independent of intrinsic qualities, making cross-world identity determinate even when qualitative profiles match.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Global supervenience requires all possible worlds differing in some fact to differ in base properties; it cannot accommodate haecceitist differences without begging the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reanalyzing counterexamples to strong individual supervenience as global supervenience failures presupposes non-haecceitist modal semantics, which the haecceitist rightfully rejects.
      ?

      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.