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 thoroughgoing competence/performance distinction cannot be a defining feature of essentialism if prominent essentialists explicitly reject it.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some prominent positions within a tradition can be unorthodox or revisionist; rejecting a standard feature doesn't prove it isn't definitional.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Essentialism might require competence/performance-like distinctions under different terminology; surface-level rejection masks deeper commitment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Definitional features can apply to a doctrine's core logic even if some adherents deny them; historical lip-service ≠ genuine philosophical rejection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Essential features must be shared by all members of a category; if prominent essentialists reject competence/performance distinction, it cannot define essentialism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Defining doctrines by what their adherents actually believe is more reliable than imposing criteria they explicitly repudiate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Essentialism has survived and evolved despite disagreements on competence/performance, suggesting this distinction is not fundamental to it.
?
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.