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 Aristotle's theory of essential predication holds that 'human being' analytically entails 'animal' via real definition, not mere linguistic convention.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Essential properties are difficult to identify without circularity; we may mistake cultural conceptual schemes for metaphysical facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modern biology shows 'animal' is a taxonomic category humans created; the entailment may reflect our classification system, not reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Other cultures and historical periods defined 'human' differently; this variation suggests conventional rather than essential definitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Real definitions capture the intrinsic nature of things independent of how language users happen to describe them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human beings are necessarily biological organisms; this metaphysical fact grounds the entailment of 'animal' from 'human.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'human' were merely conventionally related to 'animal,' we could coherently imagine non-animal humans, which we cannot.
      ?

      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.