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 that exists only within the causal-spatiotemporal nexus is not abstract in the way Platonic objects are.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some abstract properties (like mathematical structures) may be causally relevant yet still transcend spatiotemporal particulars entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Dependence on causal-spatiotemporal contexts doesn't entail non-abstractness; universals can be abstract while being multiply instantiated causally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction assumes Platonism is the only viable account of abstractness, neglecting nominalism and other frameworks where abstractness differs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Platonic abstracta are causally inert and exist necessarily outside spacetime, unlike properties embedded in causal chains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Properties dependent on spatiotemporal instantiation differ fundamentally from mind-independent, non-physical Platonic forms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If a property requires causal participation to exist or be instantiated, it lacks the independence definitive of Platonic objects.
?
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.