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 theory containing '∃x x = Obama' is ontologically committed to the existence of Obama's head, even though Obama's head need not be assigned as a value to the variable 'x' for the theory to be true.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ontological commitment is determined solely by what must be within the range of bound variables for a theory's sentences to be true (Quine, 'On What There Is').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Obama's head need not be assigned as a value to any bound variable in '∃x x = Obama' for that sentence to be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Obama's head falls outside the scope of ontological commitment as Quine defines it, regardless of mereological dependencies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P4's principle conflates metaphysical dependence with ontological commitment, treating them as equivalent when they are distinct relations (Fine, 'Ontological Dependence').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theory may presuppose background conditions for its truth-makers to obtain without thereby being ontologically committed to those conditions in any regimented logical sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A whole cannot exist without each of its parts existing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A human cannot exist without his head.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theory contains '∃x x = Obama', asserting Obama's existence.
      ?

      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.