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 Event types can be individuated extensionally by their instances without themselves possessing internal mereological or syntactic structure.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Different event types can share identical extensions yet differ structurally (e.g., 'the rise of mercury' vs 'the rise of temperature').
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Explaining why certain actions count as instances of an event type requires appeal to internal structural properties or relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Extensional identity alone cannot ground modal facts about which events could have constituted a type differently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Event types like 'sunrise' are successfully individuated by their concrete instances without needing to posit hidden internal structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Extensional criteria (what counts as an instance) fully determine event type identity across possible worlds and contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Positing internal mereological structure multiplies entities unnecessarily when extensional identity conditions suffice.
?
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.