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 E.J. Lowe's four-category ontology demonstrates that formal ontological relations, unlike contingent relations, do not require a further relation to bind them to their relata, blocking the regress at the level of ontological structure.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Declaring formal relations 'self-binding' merely labels the problem without explaining how instantiation itself avoids needing a further instantiation relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between formal and contingent relations appears stipulated rather than independently justified by intrinsic metaphysical features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if formal relations are primitive, their holding between specific relata still appears to require explanation that Lowe's account does not provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Formal relations (like instantiation) are constitutive of their relata's identity, unlike contingent relations, so they need no further binding relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The regress problem dissolves when we recognize that formal ontological structure is self-subsisting rather than requiring external metaphysical glue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Four-category ontology successfully avoids Bradley's regress by treating categories themselves as primitive structural features, not derivative entities.
      ?

      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.