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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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