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 Flux does not necessarily exclude the possibility of past-tense or tenseless statements about a changing world

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A language with stable meanings and the ability to make temporal distinctions is sufficient to describe an ever-changing world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Past-tense statements like 'Item X flowed into item Y between t1 and t2' can remain stably true even under flux
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Tenseless statements like 'Item X is present at t1, item Y is present at t2' can remain stably true even under flux
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Heraclitean flux, as interpreted by Cratylus, entails that no stable referent exists long enough for any linguistic act—including past-tense utterances—to successfully latch onto it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the referent of 'Item X at t1' is itself constituted by flux, then the act of identifying 'Item X' already presupposes a stability that radical flux denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.McDowell's reading of the Theaetetus shows that the Heraclitean must deny even momentary identity, collapsing the anchor points that tensed or tenseless statements require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's ontological relativity demonstrates that individuating objects across times requires a background framework of sortal predicates, which flux ontologies systematically undermine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without stable sortals, the phrase 'Item X between t1 and t2' names no coherent continuant, rendering past-tense truth conditions indeterminate rather than stably true.
      ?

      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.