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
    Atomism follows from the definition of substance on stric... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Atomism follows from the definition of substance on strictly a priori grounds.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.Bodies are posited as substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Substances cannot have parts without ceasing to be substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, bodies must be posited as partless, i.e., atoms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Spinoza's Ethics demonstrates that 'substance' can be defined as that which is in itself and conceived through itself, entailing exactly one infinite substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If atomism follows a priori from the concept of substance, competing a priori derivations yielding monism refute the claim that the inference is uniquely valid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The a priori route from 'substance' to 'atoms' is therefore underdetermined by the definition alone and requires suppressed empirical or metaphysical assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz argued that true unities need not be spatially partless but can be non-extended simple substances (monads), satisfying the same indivisibility criterion Cordemoy invokes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the a priori definition of substance requires only metaphysical indivisibility, not physical partlessness, then extended atoms are not the uniquely derived conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference from 'substance must be simple' to 'bodies must be spatially atomic' smuggles in a contestable identification of metaphysical simplicity with spatial indivisibility.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Personal Identity1 linked

    Related

    Bodies are posited as substances.If atomism follows a priori from the concept of substance, competing a priori de...If the a priori definition of substance requires only metaphysical indivisibilit...Leibniz argued that true unities need not be spatially partless but can be non-e...
    +5 moreShow less
    Spinoza's Ethics demonstrates that 'substance' can be defined as that which is i...Substances cannot have parts without ceasing to be substances.The a priori route from 'substance' to 'atoms' is therefore underdetermined by t...The inference from 'substance must be simple' to 'bodies must be spatially atomi...Therefore, bodies must be posited as partless, i.e., atoms.

    Similar

    Created substances meet the criterion of being substance as subjects o...85%Being a subject of predication satisfies criterion (iii) for being sub...83%A substance, for Leibniz, must be a simple entity with no parts82%What does not properly pertain to substance cannot be identical to sub...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cordemoy
    View source passageHide passage
    With regard to body, Cordemoy warns that we must be careful to avoid the mistake made by other Cartesians, who have conflated what are in fact two distinct things, namely, ‘bodies’ and ‘matter’. The former are, according to Cordemoy, the true extended substances, while the latter are assemblages, or collections, of the former. The key point is that as substances, bodies must be simple: if bodies had parts, they would depend on those parts to be what they are, and in this way the parts would thre
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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