Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Disjunctivism accommodates causal compatibility between determinables and determinates
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Disjunctive properties are not genuine properties but mere Cambridge groupings, lacking the causal unity required for property-level causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If determinable instances just are disjunctive instances, determinables inherit the causal impotence of disjunctions, undermining rather than securing compatibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Sydney Shoemaker's causal theory of properties requires that genuine properties confer stable causal powers across contexts, which disjunctions systematically fail to do.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A disjunctive 'property' like being scarlet-or-vermillion has no single causal profile, so identifying determinables with disjunctions leaves determinable causation unexplained.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Disjunctivism identifies determinable instances with disjunctive property instances and determinate instances with disjunct instances
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Identity of instances entails causal compatibility
?
How convincing is this?
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.