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 Essence talk must be hyperintensional, meaning necessarily equivalent predicates cannot be substituted salva veritate in essence contexts.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Essence contexts can be understood as intensional operators indexed to a restricted class of worlds defined by a sortal or kind, not as genuinely hyperintensional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If essence is analyzed via Kit Fine's own modal primitivism, the necessity of membership in singleton sets can be blocked by restricting the relevant modal base to natural-kind worlds, preserving intensionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The failure of substitution in Fine's example reflects an independently motivated restriction on which necessities are 'metaphysically revelatory', not a syntactic opacity irreducible to possible-worlds semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.David Lewis's counterpart theory can explain the asymmetry between 'essentially human' and 'essentially human and a set-member' via differences in counterpart relations across contexts, without invoking hyperintensionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If counterpart relations are context-sensitive and sortal-governed, then the substitution failure is pragmatic and context-relative, not a feature of the semantic structure of essence predicates themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Socrates is essentially human, but not essentially 'human and a member of a set'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Being human and being 'human and a member of a set' are necessarily equivalent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If essence contexts were merely intensional, substitution of necessarily equivalent predicates would preserve truth.
      ?

      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.