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 If a free person merely possessed freedom, that freedom would be external to the person and the person would never be freedom itself.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke and Hume treat personal identity as a bundle of properties including capacities, where 'having' a disposition just is what it means to be the kind of thing one is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a dispositional ontology, freedom as a stable capacity is not external to the agent but partially definitive of the agent's nature, making possession and identity compatible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eckhart's argument illicitly assumes a Cartesian-style bare subject that exists independently of its properties, which dispositional and bundle theorists explicitly reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's hylomorphic account shows that essential properties can be 'possessed' by a substance without being external to it — form is both had and constitutive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If possession can be internal and constitutive, Eckhart's dichotomy between possessing freedom and being freedom collapses as a false dilemma.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Possession implies a relationship between a subject and something external to that subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.What is external to a person is not identical to that person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, mere possession of freedom precludes identity with freedom.
      ?

      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.