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 Any nominalist view that identifies an equally fundamental but ontologically cheaper base for predication thereby removes the explanatory asymmetry the One Over Many argument requires.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Nominalist bases (whether tropes, resemblance classes, or properties of particulars) still face the same regress: what explains their commonality?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fundamentality and ontological parsimony are distinct virtues; a cheaper base may still require auxiliary explanatory machinery the universalist avoids.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The One Over Many argument targets explanatory adequacy, not merely ontological economy—nominalist alternatives may remain explanatorily asymmetrical in kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The One Over Many argument's force depends on explaining why many distinct particulars share properties without invoking abstract universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If nominalists ground predication in equally fundamental concrete particulars or tropes, they explain commonality without asymmetric appeal to universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Removing the asymmetry undermines the argument's conclusion that universals are necessary to avoid ad-hoc explanations of shared properties.
      ?

      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.