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 Meinongianism does not provide a view clearly distinct from platonism, but merely creates the illusion of a different view by altering the meaning of 'exist'.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.On the standard meaning of 'exist', any object that has any being at all exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.According to standard usage, Meinongianism entails that numbers and universals exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Meinongianism does not take numbers and universals to exist in spacetime.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment holds that to be is to be the value of a bound variable, making existence coextensive with quantification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Meinong's 'Außersein' objects still function as values of bound variables in formal reconstructions like Parsons' (1980) nuclear predication theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any theory requiring quantification over non-spatiotemporal objects bears the same ontological commitments as platonism, regardless of the label applied to those objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Routley's noneism, the most rigorous modern Meinongian system, still requires a domain of interpretation over which variables range, including numbers and properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The theoretical work done by positing non-existent abstract objects in noneism—grounding mathematical truth, enabling reference—is identical to the work abstract objects do in platonism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When two theories posit items playing structurally identical roles grounding identical truths, Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles implies the theories describe the same ontology under different terminology.
      ?

      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.