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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Descartes was not a supersubstantivalist

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.