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 Armstrong's partial identity account of determinate resemblance cannot handle the full range of cases of determination.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's account explains determinate resemblance via partial identity constituted by shared unit length universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There exist cases of determination that cannot be accommodated by the partial identity model.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's partial identity account requires determinate properties to share structural components, but determinables like shape lack decomposable unit universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Circularity is triangular and squareness are both shapes, yet share no partial identity constituent that could ground their mutual subordination to shape.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a common structural part, Armstrong's model cannot explain why both count as determinate shapes rather than as unrelated property families.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Determinates of phenomenal color like specific hues involve incompatibility relations—no region can be both pure red and pure blue—that partial identity cannot explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If red and blue shared identity constituents sufficient to explain their both being colors, those shared parts would not preclude co-instantiation, yet co-instantiation is necessarily excluded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.W.E. Johnson's original determinable-determinate distinction was precisely motivated by such necessary incompatibilities, which identity-based mereology systematically fails to capture.
      ?

      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.