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 individual a has property P essentially — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An individual a has property P essentially

    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
    ?
    • Every counterpart b of a is a member of P across all worlds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Haecceitism is false: there are no primitive facts about which individual in another world is identical to or a counterpart of a given actual individual (Adams, 'Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a determinate counterpart relation grounded in haecceity or qualitative essence, the quantification over 'every counterpart b of a' in P1 lacks a well-defined domain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A claim of essential property possession that depends on an ill-defined domain of quantification fails to establish genuine modal necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterpart relations are interest-relative and context-dependent, not fixed by objective similarity alone (Lewis, 'Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If counterpart relations shift with context, whether b counts as a counterpart of a is not determinate, making essential property attributions indeterminate rather than objective.
      ?

      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

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    A claim of essential property possession that depends on an ill-defined domain o...Counterpart relations are interest-relative and context-dependent, not fixed by ...Every counterpart b of a is a member of P across all worldsHaecceitism is false: there are no primitive facts about which individual in ano...
    +2 moreShow less
    If counterpart relations shift with context, whether b counts as a counterpart o...Without a determinate counterpart relation grounded in haecceity or qualitative ...

    Similar

    An individual a has a property P just in case a is a member of P93%An individual a has property P accidentally87%An individual's complete concept includes every property, including ac...83%No property can be more specific than itself83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: possible-worlds
    View source passageHide passage
    Thus, on this analysis, a proposition p is true in a world w just in case w ∈ p and an individual a has a property P just in case a ∈ P. (Note that propositions are thus simply properties of worlds on these definitions.) a has P accidentally just in case a ∈ P but b ∉ P for some other-worldly counterpart of b of a; and a has P essentially if b ∈ P for every counterpart b of a.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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