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
    Lowe's four-category ontology shows that ontological role... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Substratum's claim to substancehood rests not on meeting the tests of substancehood itself, but on being what enables particular kinds of substances to be substances.

    Lowe's four-category ontology shows that ontological roles can be asymmetrically distributed without the grounding entity being deficient relative to grounded entities.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Lowe's categories (abstract objects, concrete objects, universals, tropes) show entities can ground others without possessing all their properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Grounding is fundamentally asymmetric; the grounded entity's dependence doesn't require the grounding entity to mirror its ontological complexity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Concrete particulars ground facts about themselves without needing the meta-level resources facts require, yet remain fully robust entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If grounding requires explanatory priority, the grounding entity must possess sufficient resources to explain the grounded entity's nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lowe's asymmetric distribution appears to smuggle in unexplained dependencies between categories rather than genuinely eliminating deficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim needs independent justification that grounding doesn't collapse into either causal dependence or derivative ontological status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Personal Identity1 linked

    Related

    Concrete particulars ground facts about themselves without needing the meta-leve...Grounding is fundamentally asymmetric; the grounded entity's dependence doesn't ...If grounding requires explanatory priority, the grounding entity must possess su...Lowe's asymmetric distribution appears to smuggle in unexplained dependencies be...
    +3 moreShow less
    Lowe's categories (abstract objects, concrete objects, universals, tropes) show ...Substratum's claim to substancehood rests not on meeting the tests of substanceh...The claim needs independent justification that grounding doesn't collapse into e...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit