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
    Descartes was not a supersubstantivalist — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Descartes was not a supersubstantivalist

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?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.Descartes explicitly identifies res extensa as a substance distinct from its modes, maintaining body as an ontologically robust individual thing (Pr I 51-52).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Supersubstantivalism, as defended by Jonathan Schaffer, collapses particulars into regions of spacetime, but Descartes insists finite bodies retain genuine substantial status independent of spatial abstraction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If space were the primary substance for Descartes, the vacuum would be metaphysically possible, yet he argues its impossibility precisely because extension cannot exist without corporeal substance (Pr II 16-18).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes distinguishes internal place (the extension constituting a body) from external place (its relation to surrounding bodies), treating the latter as purely relational and not as a fundamental ontological category (Pr II 13-15).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A genuine supersubstantivalist must treat spatial regions as ontologically prior to their occupants, but Descartes grounds all spatial facts in the prior existence of bodies, inverting the required explanatory direction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism takes space as primary and matter as secondary or derived from space
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes takes matter or body as primary and treats space as a derived, abstract concept (Pr II 11)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.For Descartes, space is a genus or species concept (a universal, Pr I 59), whereas supersubstantivalism treats space as an individual
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    A genuine supersubstantivalist must treat spatial regions as ontologically prior...Ascribing supersubstantivalism to Descartes violates his nominalism (Pr II 8)Descartes distinguishes internal place (the extension constituting a body) from ...Descartes explicitly identifies res extensa as a substance distinct from its mod...
    +5 moreShow less
    Descartes takes matter or body as primary and treats space as a derived, abstrac...For Descartes, space is a genus or species concept (a universal, Pr I 59), where...If space were the primary substance for Descartes, the vacuum would be metaphysi...Supersubstantivalism takes space as primary and matter as secondary or derived f...Supersubstantivalism, as defended by Jonathan Schaffer, collapses particulars in...

    Similar

    Ascribing supersubstantivalism to Descartes violates his nominalism (P...79%Fodor's revised argument against the Chinese Room is unsubstantiated71%Global supervenience does not entail strong supervenience70%Subset realization physicalism does not by itself entail supervenience...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: descartes-physics
    View source passageHide passage
    Related to the alleged circularity of the definitions of motion and body, as well as the problem of resting bodies, is the difficulty in reconciling Descartes’ definition of “substance” with his claim that individual bodies are substances. If, as Descartes believes, substances are not dependent on other things in order to exist (Pr I 51), then any part of extension (which is a body, via Pr II 10, as explained above) would not qualify as a substance since it depend on its contiguous neighbors to
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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