Complex universals — and the complex facts in which they ... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Complex universals — and the complex facts in which they are exemplified — are ultimately grounded in simple facts and cannot be infinitely decomposed

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.The constituency relation is well-founded
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.A structural universal is exemplified by a complex object whose simple parts exemplify the constituent universals
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A well-founded constituency relation entails that decomposition of complex universals must terminate
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.David Armstrong's own account of structural universals generates infinite regress: methane requires a universal BONDED-TO that is itself structural.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If BONDED-TO is itself complex and requires constituent universals, the decomposition of structural universals never terminates at simples.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Lewis's 'Against Structural Universals' demonstrates that no mereological framework can coherently represent structural universals without vicious regress.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

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.