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 that entails that Ks exist does not thereby incur ontological commitment to Ks if Ks are not fundamental entities.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion ties ontological commitment to existential quantification in true theories, not to metaphysical fundamentality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental existence reintroduces a two-tier ontology Quine's framework was designed to eliminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a theory's quantifiers range over Ks and the theory is true, Ks are in the domain of quantification regardless of their derivative status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Fine's metaontological view, real existence is a substantive notion, but derivative entities like sets and composites still genuinely exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theory that entails the existence of derivative entities—like mereological sums in Lewis's plural quantification—commits us to those entities as part of ontology's subject matter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ontological commitment on the truthmaker account requires that Ks be truthmakers for the theory, not merely that Ks exist if the theory is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Only fundamental entities — those with real existence — can play the truthmaking role, per the grounding account of truthmaking.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-fundamental entities can exist without being truthmakers.
      ?

      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.