Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Armstrong's immanent realism demonstrates that any nominalist appeal to brute predication still requires a truthmaker, which bare particulars cannot provide.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Nominalists can appeal to primitive facts about objects that don't require separate truthmakers beyond the objects themselves.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Truthmaker theory itself is controversial; rejecting it avoids the demand that bare particulars provide truthmakers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Armstrong's reliance on abstract universals generates equal metaphysical concerns about how universals relate to particulars.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Truthmaker theory requires every truth to correspond to something in reality that makes it true.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bare particulars lack properties and cannot ground facts about what properties objects instantiate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Nominalists cannot avoid predicating properties; denying truthmakers leaves predication conceptually ungrounded.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42