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 Instantiation as a relation can be rejected because properties have gaps that objects fill directly.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's truthmaker argument shows that for 'a is F' to be true, there must be a distinct state of affairs whose constituents include both a and F as bound together.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A property with a 'gap' remains an abstract incomplete entity until bound; the binding itself is an additional ontological commitment that cannot be absorbed into the property's structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eliminating instantiation by invoking gaps merely relocates Bradley's regress into the internal structure of the property rather than dissolving it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The 'gappiness' metaphor, drawn from Frege's concept/object distinction, already presupposes a categorial asymmetry that functions exactly as a relational tie does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If filling a gap constitutes a connection without a relation, the constitution relation itself becomes an unexplained primitive no less mysterious than instantiation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Properties are incomplete or 'gappy' entities that require completion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When an object fills the gap in a property, the property-object connection is constituted without a separate instantiation relation.
      ?

      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.