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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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