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 A hierarchy within a single ontological category—physical properties—does not constitute dualism, which requires two fundamentally distinct kinds of property.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If higher-level properties are irreducible to lower-level ones, they constitute a distinct explanatory category regardless of labels.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim assumes 'ontological category' is transparent—but ordering hierarchically may already imply fundamental distinctness in kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical dualisms often concealed themselves as hierarchical distinctions; formal denial of dualism doesn't establish its absence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Dualism requires two fundamentally distinct *kinds* of property, not merely different levels or degrees within one kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Physical hierarchies (e.g., atomic vs. molecular properties) maintain causal closure and unified explanatory frameworks.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ordering properties by complexity or emergence within physics doesn't introduce non-physical elements or violate physicalism.
?
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.