Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Nathan Salmon's work shows that the alleged intuitions supporting origin essentialism fail to distinguish metaphysical necessity from epistemic necessity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some intuitions about identity are reliable guides to metaphysics; dismissing all as epistemic begs the question against essentialism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between epistemic and metaphysical necessity itself requires independent justification, not mere stipulation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Origin essentialism can be defended on grounds independent of intuition—e.g., causal constitution of identity—which Salmon's critique doesn't address.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Our inability to conceive of Socrates without his origins feels necessary, but this reflects cognitive limits, not metaphysical facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If origin essentialism were truly metaphysically necessary, it should hold across all possible worlds, not just feel intuitively compelling.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Salmon demonstrates that intuitions about origins conflate what we cannot empirically verify with what is genuinely impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
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.