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 Kant argued that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent predicate, making any route to absolute necessity conceptually suspect.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical truths are necessarily existent abstract objects; denying 'necessary existence' makes platonism conceptually incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Laws of logic and mathematics seem to necessarily exist independent of minds; rejecting necessary existence denies obvious modal facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant conflates linguistic predication with metaphysical properties; necessity can coherently characterize a thing's mode of being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Existence is not a real predicate but a logical function; adding 'necessary' to existence doesn't enhance its conceptual content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All predicates describe qualities of things; necessity describes logical relations, not properties things possess intrinsically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Confusing necessity in thought with necessity in being leads to the modal fallacy of treating epistemic certainty as metaphysical fact.
      ?

      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.