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 For every concrete individual x, if x is a person, then x is a property instance.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Bare particular theory (Bergmann, Moreland) holds that concrete individuals possess a substratum that instantiates properties but is not itself a property instance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the concrete individual x just is a property instance, there is no ontological ground for the unity of properties in a single persistent subject.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Divine simplicity doctrine itself requires God to be beyond property-instantiation, so identifying persons with property instances entails God cannot be a person—a theologically unacceptable result.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Persons are paradigmatically subjects of experience, not abstract qualitative instances—Strawson's 'basic particulars' are irreducible to property bundles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If persons were property instances, personal identity across time would collapse into qualitative similarity, contradicting Chisholm's strict criterion of haecceity-based identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
For every concrete individual x, x is a property instance of some rich property or other.
?
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.