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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42