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 Necessary properties and impossible properties supervene on any property whatsoever.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience is a dependency relation that requires a non-trivial explanatory or modal connection between the supervening and base properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A relation holding vacuously—because necessary properties admit no variation across any possible worlds—fails to establish genuine dependency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the 'supervenience' of necessary properties on any base is not real supervenience but a degenerate case that should be excluded by a well-formed definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kim's own analysis distinguishes weak, strong, and global supervenience precisely to capture substantive covariation, not logical triviality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary properties trivially supervene on any property, then supervenience loses its role as a criterion for distinguishing genuine ontological dependence from mere logical artifact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Philosophers like Jaegwon Kim and Frank Jackson explicitly intend supervenience to track explanatory relationships, so trivial cases should be ruled out as theoretically idle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.No two things can differ with respect to necessary or impossible properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no two things can differ with respect to a property P, then no two things can differ with respect to P without also differing with respect to any property set B.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Supervenience holds when there can be no difference in A-properties without a difference in B-properties.
      ?

      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.