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
    Expressing dependence purely at the token level cannot ac... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The asymmetric dependence between property instances and substances is best expressed in terms of particular instances rather than properties and substances in general.

    Expressing dependence purely at the token level cannot account for why a particular redness instance depends on a substance *as a bearer*, rather than on its specific haecceity.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Token-level analysis treats properties as self-contained entities, obscuring why they require *any* particular substrate over another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A substance's role as bearer is conceptually prior to its haecceity; the latter is individuating only given the former's foundational role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If redness depended on haecceity rather than substance-qua-bearer, two qualitatively identical substances would support different red tokens—contradicting empirical indiscernibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Substance-as-bearer and haecceity are not competing dependence relations; haecceity could ground the substance's capacity to be a bearer in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Token-level dependence relations can be enriched with sortal information without abandoning nominalism; bearer-status need not be metaphysically primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between substance and haecceity may be merely conceptual, making the claim's dichotomy false—both could be aspects of a single dependence base.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A substance's role as bearer is conceptually prior to its haecceity; the latter ...If redness depended on haecceity rather than substance-qua-bearer, two qualitati...Substance-as-bearer and haecceity are not competing dependence relations; haecce...The asymmetric dependence between property instances and substances is best expr...
    +3 moreShow less
    The distinction between substance and haecceity may be merely conceptual, making...Token-level analysis treats properties as self-contained entities, obscuring why...Token-level dependence relations can be enriched with sortal information without...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit