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
    Hybrid ontological objects (intersections of mental, abst... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Hybrid ontological objects (intersections of mental, abstract, and physical categories) are metaphysically permissible

    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.The incompatibility thesis rests on an equivocation of the terms 'mental', 'abstract', and 'physical'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Once the equivocation is cleared up, the apparent ontological inconsistency dissolves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Natural language has a nuanced nature that is simultaneously physical, mental, and 'abstractish'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's indispensability criterion demands that ontological commitment track explanatory necessity, not conceptual convenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing a hybrid object merely to preserve ordinary talk of 'languages' multiplies ontological categories without corresponding explanatory gain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a single entity must simultaneously satisfy incompatible individuation conditions (causal for physical, acausal for abstract), the entity is incoherent, not hybrid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chalmers and Jackson's two-dimensional semantics demonstrates that apparent category violations typically reflect confused intensional contexts, not genuine ontological novelty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's dissolution of inconsistency via equivocation-diagnosis itself presupposes that 'mental', 'abstract', and 'physical' lack determinate extension, which undermines rather than licenses hybrid posits.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Chalmers and Jackson's two-dimensional semantics demonstrates that apparent cate...Natural language has a nuanced nature that is simultaneously physical, mental, a...Once the equivocation is cleared up, the apparent ontological inconsistency diss...Positing a hybrid object merely to preserve ordinary talk of 'languages' multipl...
    +4 moreShow less
    Quine's indispensability criterion demands that ontological commitment track exp...The incompatibility thesis rests on an equivocation of the terms 'mental', 'abst...The supporting argument's dissolution of inconsistency via equivocation-diagnosi...When a single entity must simultaneously satisfy incompatible individuation cond...

    Similar

    Non-existent objects are a genuine ontological category.80%Within an Aristotelian ontology, the only available ontological catego...80%These categories are valid for both cognitive (epistemological) and on...80%Ultimate simple objects are not ontologically viable as posited in the...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: linguistics
    View source passageHide passage
    His main argument against incompatibility, and in favour of intersection, is that the former rests on an equivocation of the terms ‘mental’, ‘abstract’ and even ‘physical’. Once the equivocation is cleared up, it is argued, hybrid ontological objects are licensed. The argument goes that appreciating the nuanced physical and mental and what he calls ‘abstractish’ nature of natural language will dissolve worries about ontological inconsistency and open the door for intersection. Consider some othe
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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