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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If 'c' is introduced as a name for the piece of clay qua piece of clay, it rigidly designates that continuant across all worlds where that clay exists.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The clay might cease existing in some possible world; unclear whether 'c' rigidly designates the clay or fails to refer, undermining the claim's universality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sortals like 'piece of clay' are conventionally defined; they don't metaphysically determine what property must remain constant across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The same clay stuff could constitute different continuants (a statue vs. a lump); 'qua piece of clay' may underdetermine which continuant 'c' actually designates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Names introduced with sortal criteria (qua piece of clay) fix their referent by essential properties, ensuring rigid designation across possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'c' names clay stuff itself rather than a clay-shaped object, it tracks the same material continuant regardless of shape changes or spatial displacement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rigid designation requires a de re connection to the referent; sortally-constrained naming secures this by anchoring to the entity's fundamental kind.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42