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
    Concrete individuals cannot be identified with property i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→No person is a property instance—not God, not me, not Socrates.

    Concrete individuals cannot be identified with property instances.

    Divine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Divine Attributes

    Related

    No person is a property instance—not God, not me, not Socrates.Persons (including God) are concrete individuals.

    Similar

    No person is a property instance—not God, not me, not Socrates.85%

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    For every concrete individual x, if x is a person, then x is a propert...80%
    Essential property instances of God are not more dependent on God than...75%
    For every concrete individual x, x is a property instance of some rich...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    Rich Properties and Haecceity Properties. Socrates can exist without his rich property; ergo, he can exist without his rich property instance; ergo, Socrates cannot be a rich property instance or any property instance. The truth of the initial premise is fallout from the definition of ‘rich property.’ The R of x is a conjunctive property each conjunct of which is a property of x. Thus Socrates’ rich property includes (has as a conjunct) the property of being married to Xanthippe. But Socrates might not have had that property, whence it follows that he might not have had R. (If R has C as a con...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective