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 relations used in Thomasson's scheme—e.g., dep... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The worry about guaranteeing mutual exclusiveness and joint exhaustiveness of ontological categories can be met by defining categories in ways that logically guarantee these properties.

    Dependence relations used in Thomasson's scheme—e.g., dependence on mental states—are themselves ontologically loaded predicates requiring prior categorical distinctions to be well-defined.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Dependence relations require distinguishing between relata (what depends on what), presupposing categories like 'mental' and 'physical' already.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without prior categorical commitments, 'dependence on mental states' lacks determinate meaning—any entity could trivially depend on anything.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thomasson's framework uses dependence to derive categories, but this is circular if dependence itself requires those categories to be intelligible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Dependence can be defined formally (in terms of counterfactuals or necessity) without presupposing contentful categorical distinctions beforehand.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Categories can emerge iteratively: dependence relations themselves help *constitute* and refine what counts as 'mental' or 'physical' distinctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge of circularity assumes categories must be fully determinate prior to use—but conceptual schemes can be partially self-supporting and coherent.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Categorical distinctions(what needs to be established before the dependence relations can work properly)
    Clear separations between different types or kinds of things—like distinguishing between physical objects, ideas, and feelings as fundamentally different categories.
    Dependence relations(as what remains even without intrinsic existence)
    The connections between things where one thing only exists or makes sense because of its relationship to other things.
    Predicates(in logic and philosophy of language)
    Words or phrases that describe properties or characteristics of something—like 'is red' or 'is tall' in the sentence 'The ball is red.'
    Thomasson(The statement refers to her specific framework for understanding existence)
    Amie Thomasson is a contemporary philosopher who studies what exists and how different things depend on each other; she's known for developing systematic ways to think about what's real.
    mental states(Herder's theory of mind)
    Conditions consisting in forces that manifest themselves in people's bodily behavior, conceptually tied to corresponding types of bodily behavior but not reducible thereto
    ontologically loaded(describing what 'whether X is' really means)
    Having real, serious significance for how things actually exist in the world, rather than being just a matter of language or naming.
    well-defined(in mathematics and logic)
    Clear and precise enough that there's no confusion about what something means or how it works.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Categories can emerge iteratively: dependence relations themselves help *constit...Dependence can be defined formally (in terms of counterfactuals or necessity) wi...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Dependence relations require distinguishing between relata (what depends on what...
    The charge of circularity assumes categories must be fully determinate prior to ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The worry about guaranteeing mutual exclusiveness and joint exhaustiveness of on...Thomasson's framework uses dependence to derive categories, but this is circular...Without prior categorical commitments, 'dependence on mental states' lacks deter...