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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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