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 Non-maximal determinables like 'color' ground genuine resemblance relations among red, blue, and green that no maximal determinable captures.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Resemblance among red, blue, and green reduces to shared physical properties (wavelength ranges) without requiring non-maximal determinables as distinct grounding bases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Non-maximal determinables either collapse into maximal ones or introduce vague, explanatorily idle categories that multiply entities beyond necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Genuine resemblance requires determinate sameness, not mere non-maximal abstraction; otherwise 'similarity' becomes too permissive to be meaningful.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Red, blue, and green share the property of being colors in a way that transcends any single maximal determinable (e.g., specific wavelength).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Maximal determinables are infinitely fine-grained; grouping by them alone cannot explain why we categorize distinct shades as genuinely similar.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Non-maximal determinables like 'color' capture real patterns in nature that ground objective resemblance independent of human classification.
?
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.