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
    If there are infinitely many forms of oneness, then there... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Uniqueness is false.

    If there are infinitely many forms of oneness, then there must be more than one form corresponding to the property of being one.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    D2 contains an argument that if the one is, then there are infinitely many forms...D5 and D6 together entail that the one is.Uniqueness is false.

    Similar

    D2 contains an argument that if the one is, then there are infinitely ...91%By the principle of Purity-F, if a form is many, it is not one81%If a form has infinitely many parts, then the form is itself infinitel...80%The property of being one and the property of being many are contrarie...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    Yet another alternative is that detailed logical analysis of the Deductions reveals arguments sufficient to establish both that the one is and, importantly, that principles such as Purity-F and Uniqueness are false. As Rickless (2007, 136–137 and 211) argues, Purity-F is a background premise of both D1 and D4. Taken together, then, D1 and D2 are sufficient to establish that a contradiction follows from the hypothesis that the one is, on the assumption that Purity-F is true. That is, D1 and D2 to

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective