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
    Denying a property corresponds to the predicate 'does not... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Denying a property corresponds to the predicate 'does not exemplify itself' is ad hoc and a poor strategy for resolving Russell's paradox

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that we accept entities only when they are indispensable to our best theories, not merely conceivable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The abundant conception's unrestricted comprehension generates contradictions, showing conceivability alone cannot be the criterion for property existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principled restriction—such as type theory or stratification—provides independent theoretical motivation beyond mere paradox-avoidance, unlike ad hoc denial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's own ramified type theory and Whitehead's systematic response show that coherent alternatives to ad hoc denial exist and were historically available.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a strategy for resolving paradox lacks principled generalizability to analogous cases (e.g., the Burali-Forti paradox), it fails as a theoretical solution rather than a patch.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The ad hoc denial singles out one predicate arbitrarily while leaving the abundant framework's underlying unrestricted comprehension principle otherwise intact and still vulnerable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We understand the predicate 'does not exemplify itself'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the abundant conception, understanding a predicate generally suffices to postulate a corresponding property
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Making an exception solely to avoid paradox, without independent motivation, is ad hoc
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A principled restriction—such as type theory or stratification—provides independ...If a strategy for resolving paradox lacks principled generalizability to analogo...In the abundant conception, understanding a predicate generally suffices to post...Making an exception solely to avoid paradox, without independent motivation, is ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that we accept entities onl...Russell's own ramified type theory and Whitehead's systematic response show that...The abundant conception's unrestricted comprehension generates contradictions, s...The ad hoc denial singles out one predicate arbitrarily while leaving the abunda...We understand the predicate 'does not exemplify itself'

    Similar

    We understand the predicate 'does not exemplify itself'85%There is no clear reason to hold that all properties must exemplify th...80%These two interpretations are not equivalent when extrinsic properties...76%Theories that construe events as property exemplifications effectively...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: properties
    View source passageHide passage
    It is easy to construct complex predicates. But whether there really are corresponding properties of this kind is a much more difficult and controversial issue, tightly bound to the sparse/abundant distinction. In the sparse conception the tendency is to dispense with them. This is understandable since in this camp one typically postulates properties in rebus for empirical explanatory reasons. But then, if we explain some phenomena by attributing properties \(F\) and \(G\) to an object, while de
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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