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 property being 'of' an individual does not entail that the property requires the individual's existence in order to exist or be instantiated.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If a property is 'of' an individual, that relation itself constitutes a dependence: the property's identity requires that individual's reference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Intrinsic properties like 'Socrates' wisdom' are constitutively tied to Socrates; they cannot be fully instantiated without him existing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between 'of an individual' and mere abstract universals collapses if properties need not depend on their bearers for existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Abstract properties like 'being-a-perfect-number' belong to 7, yet exist independently of whether 7 or any individual exists.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical truths about Socrates' essence (e.g., being-composed-of-atoms) hold necessarily regardless of his temporal existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Properties can be instantiated by multiple bearers across different possible worlds where only some bearers exist in each world.
?
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.