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 If a whole is ontologically dependent on its parts, then the whole has no existence independent of those parts and thus no unified identity of its own.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Dependence on parts for existence doesn't entail lack of identity; emergent properties of wholes are genuinely distinct from parts' properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A unified identity can arise from parts' organization and relations; the whole's organization is a real feature not reducible to individual parts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Dependent entities can have their own causal powers and counterfactual conditions; dependence is compatible with real, distinct identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ontological dependence means X cannot exist without Y; thus X's existence is entirely determined by Y's existence and properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If a whole's identity were independent of its parts, we could change all parts while preserving identity—but this seems incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without unified identity distinct from parts, 'the whole' refers only to a collection, not a genuine entity with its own nature.
?
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.