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 instantiated in all actual members of a taxon remains a contingent fact, not a de re necessity, unless grounded in essence.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Universal instantiation in all actual members constitutes a robust de re fact that doesn't require essence-grounding to be necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between contingent universality and essential properties may be metaphysically unmotivated or empirically undetectable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Essence itself is controversial; grounding necessity in essence presupposes essences exist and are knowable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Universal instantiation across actual members could result from contingent historical factors rather than metaphysical necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Essence grounds de re necessity; without essence-grounding, even universal properties remain metaphysically accidental.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Possible worlds exist where taxon members lack the property, making it contingent despite actual universality.
?
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.