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 An individual a has property P accidentally

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterpart relations are not identity relations, so b's lacking P tells us nothing about whether a itself could lack P.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Accidental property ascription requires de re modality about a, not qualitative similarity facts about distinct individuals in other worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Kripkean essentialism, properties grounded in natural kind membership or origin are necessary, not accidental, regardless of counterpart variation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The existence of a world-bound counterpart lacking P may reflect modal variation in the counterpart relation itself, not genuine contingency in a's possession of P.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Individual a is a member of P
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There exists some other-worldly counterpart b of a such that b is not a member of P
      ?

      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.