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
    Arguments that establish F as an essential property of K ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Arguments that establish F as an essential property of K are invulnerable to the complaint that not everything with property F is K.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?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.Such arguments claim only that K necessarily has property F, not that everything with property F is K.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Complaints that not everything with F is K attack a claim the arguments do not make.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Essential property arguments typically rely on co-extensional necessity claims, making the biconditional implicit even if not stated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's own essentialist arguments in 'Naming and Necessity' ground necessity in identity conditions that presuppose uniqueness of the kind's extension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If F is truly essential to K, any entity with F in all possible worlds becomes a candidate instance of K, collapsing the asymmetry the claim depends on.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's causal-historical account ties natural kind terms to reference-fixing samples, not one-directional necessity, making extension bidirectionally constrained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An essential property that does not help demarcate the kind's extension from co-instantiating non-members fails the theoretical role essences are invoked to play.
      ?

      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

    Related

    An essential property that does not help demarcate the kind's extension from co-...Complaints that not everything with F is K attack a claim the arguments do not m...Essential property arguments typically rely on co-extensional necessity claims, ...If F is truly essential to K, any entity with F in all possible worlds becomes a...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kripke's own essentialist arguments in 'Naming and Necessity' ground necessity i...Putnam's causal-historical account ties natural kind terms to reference-fixing s...Such arguments claim only that K necessarily has property F, not that everything...

    Similar

    Essential properties are necessary properties — they cannot be otherwi...85%Such arguments claim only that K necessarily has property F, not that ...85%For Leibniz, properties possessed only for part of an object's existen...83%For something to possess a property, that property must exist82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: natural-kinds
    View source passageHide passage
    The fact that such arguments show only that F is an essential property of K means that they are invulnerable to complaints that not everything with F is K. For example it is sometimes complained that water cannot be essentially H2O for the following reasons (a) water is a liquid, whereas a substance comprised of H2O can exist as a solid or a gas; (b) a single H2O molecule is not a sample of water because it does not have the properties we can ascribe to samples of water (such as a temperature);
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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