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
    Dependence and explanation are more fine-grained relation... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Dependence and explanation are more fine-grained relations than modern logical entailment

    Causation
    ?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.According to modern logical entailment, every necessary proposition entails and is entailed by every other necessary proposition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Spinoza holds that substance causes and asymmetrically explains necessarily existing infinite modes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Asymmetrical explanation among necessary truths requires a finer-grained notion of dependence than logical entailment
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Logical entailment can be formulated in hyperintensional frameworks (e.g., Fine's truthmaker semantics) that distinguish necessarily equivalent propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If modern logic already accommodates fine-grained necessary connections, Spinoza's asymmetric explanatory relations require no primitive notion beyond what formal tools provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates classical extensional entailment with the full resources of contemporary modal and hyperintensional logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason generates asymmetric explanatory chains among necessary truths using only conceptual containment, not a sui generis dependence relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Leibniz's framework captures causal asymmetry among necessities without abandoning logical analysis, Spinoza's case does not establish that dependence is irreducibly finer-grained than entailment.
      ?

      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 & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    According to modern logical entailment, every necessary proposition entails and ...Asymmetrical explanation among necessary truths requires a finer-grained notion ...If Leibniz's framework captures causal asymmetry among necessities without aband...If modern logic already accommodates fine-grained necessary connections, Spinoza...
    +4 moreShow less
    Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason generates asymmetric explanatory chains...Logical entailment can be formulated in hyperintensional frameworks (e.g., Fine'...Spinoza holds that substance causes and asymmetrically explains necessarily exis...The claim conflates classical extensional entailment with the full resources of ...

    Similar

    Metaphysical explanation and causal explanation are alike when the rel...79%Reason explanations are a form of ordinary causal explanations77%According to modern logical entailment, every necessary proposition en...77%Functional explanations are legitimate explanations in which a cause i...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: spinoza-modal
    View source passageHide passage
    A promising place to start is the modal status of God’s existence. In Ip11, Spinoza claims that God necessarily exists. But what is it in virtue of which God necessarily exists? This might sound like an odd question. Once explanations reach a necessarily existing object, are there further in virtue of questions to be asked about that object’s existence? More generally, when we reach necessity, haven’t we reached the end of explanations?[14] Not always: mathematics is full of asymmetrical depe
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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