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
    For things that can but do not yet exist outside the soul... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    For things that can but do not yet exist outside the soul, existence in a proposition refers to the common nature, not to the individual.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A human being is always an animal by nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An eclipse cannot be anything other than the privation of light.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the truth of such predications does not depend on knowing whether an individual instance actually exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Singular terms in true propositions must ultimately be grounded in actual or possible individual existents, not abstract natures (Ockham, Summa Logicae).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proposition predicating animality of a future human being is made true by the potential existence of that very individual, not by a common nature that exists nowhere.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing common natures as referents for possible-but-nonexistent things illicitly multiplies ontological categories beyond necessity, violating parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripkean essentialism establishes that modal truths about kinds are grounded in the intrinsic properties of actual individuals across possible worlds, not in Platonic common natures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'human is always animal' is necessarily true, this necessity derives from the essential properties of actual individual humans, making appeal to a common nature explanatorily redundant.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    A human being is always an animal by nature.A proposition predicating animality of a future human being is made true by the ...An eclipse cannot be anything other than the privation of light.If 'human is always animal' is necessarily true, this necessity derives from the...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kripkean essentialism establishes that modal truths about kinds are grounded in ...Positing common natures as referents for possible-but-nonexistent things illicit...Singular terms in true propositions must ultimately be grounded in actual or pos...Therefore, the truth of such predications does not depend on knowing whether an ...

    Similar

    Some propositions predicate a common nature rather than an individual ...86%A proposition's truth in a possible world only requires the existence ...84%The actual existence of things outside the soul is not always required...84%Therefore, propositions cannot be made up of properties that exist in ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: robert-kilwardby
    View source passageHide passage
    The actual existence of things outside the soul is not always required for a (affirmative) proposition (here understood as a statement-making sentence) to be true (NLP II.7, 381). Nonbeing can be understood as being not yet actual but in potency only, that is, that has an aptitude to exist in actuality.[24] About those things that can but do not yet exist outside the soul, existence is taken to refer to the (common) nature and not to the individual (NLP II.7, 379): when animal is predicated of
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit