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 Kim's property-exemplification account, though fine-grained, still permits re-identification when the same constituent triple recurs across different linguistic framings.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Constituent triples may be identical while contexts differ; contextual information might constitute part of what makes properties genuinely distinct exemplifications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The account risks collapsing distinctions between genuine recurrence and mere notational equivalence; sameness of triple notation doesn't guarantee metaphysical sameness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Different linguistic framings may encode structurally different relational contexts that affect property identity; the account may inadequately capture this.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Fine-grained individuation requires tracking constituent properties precisely; Kim's triple-structure provides exactly this systematic tracking mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Linguistic variation (different framings) shouldn't determine identity; sameness of underlying properties should, making re-identification across framings justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without re-identification criteria across contexts, property exemplification becomes tied to utterance, making identity arbitrary rather than substantive.
      ?

      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.