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 Each form in the infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness is infinitely many.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Piece-of-Pie model of partaking is not the only coherent account; Plato's own 'Presence' model treats partaking as non-mereological participation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a form's participation in another form does not require the form to contain parts corresponding to each participated form, then infinite partaking does not entail infinite parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without the mereological entailment, a form may stand in infinitely many participation relations while remaining a unified, non-composite entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's distinction between a concept's extension and the concept itself shows that predicates applying to an object do not decompose that object into as many parts as predicates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If forms are analogous to Fregean concepts rather than to extensional sets, then the number of predicates truly applicable to a form does not determine the form's internal multiplicity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Premise P2—that forms are as many as the predicates truly applied to them—thus conflates intensional predication with mereological composition, invalidating the inference to infinite many-ness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.One-over-Many, Self-Predication, and Non-Identity together generate an infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness, each of which partakes of the forms above it in the hierarchy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Forms are as many as the predicates that can be truly applied to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under the Piece-of-Pie model of partaking, if a form partakes of infinitely many forms, then it has infinitely many parts.
      ?

      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.