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
    An abundant conception of properties naturally accommodat... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An abundant conception of properties naturally accommodates logically compound properties

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The abundant conception focuses on meaning and mental content
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Postulating logically compound properties accounts for our understanding of complex predicates and how they differ from simple ones
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sparse conceptions (Armstrong, Lewis) hold that only causally efficacious, natural properties are genuine, excluding mere logical constructs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logically compound 'properties' like disjunctions lack causal powers, they fail to do the real metaphysical work properties are posited to do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accommodation of logical compounds within abundant conceptions conflates semantic convenience with genuine ontological commitment to properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mellor and Oliver argue that admitting all logically compound properties generates vicious regress and redundancy in property ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If every predicate extension generates a property, the abundant view loses explanatory traction precisely because it cannot distinguish natural from gerrymandered properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Accommodation of logical compounds within abundant conceptions conflates semanti...If every predicate extension generates a property, the abundant view loses expla...If logically compound 'properties' like disjunctions lack causal powers, they fa...Mellor and Oliver argue that admitting all logically compound properties generat...
    +3 moreShow less
    Postulating logically compound properties accounts for our understanding of comp...Sparse conceptions (Armstrong, Lewis) hold that only causally efficacious, natur...The abundant conception focuses on meaning and mental content

    Similar

    Postulating logically compound properties accounts for our understandi...84%Complex qualities and complex concepts are then constructed from these...79%Simple properties can serve as both qualities and concepts simultaneou...79%If propositions have properties as components, those properties must b...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: properties
    View source passageHide passage
    It is easy to construct complex predicates. But whether there really are corresponding properties of this kind is a much more difficult and controversial issue, tightly bound to the sparse/abundant distinction. In the sparse conception the tendency is to dispense with them. This is understandable since in this camp one typically postulates properties in rebus for empirical explanatory reasons. But then, if we explain some phenomena by attributing properties \(F\) and \(G\) to an object, while de
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit