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
    Not all properties and relations entail existence, so non... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Not all properties and relations entail existence, so non-existent objects can still exemplify certain properties.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.While most properties and relations obviously entail existence (e.g., being a horse, being taller than), it is not clear that all properties do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an object fails to exist at a possible world, that failure to exist in some sense characterizes the object at that world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Characterization just is property exemplification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Property exemplification is ontologically loaded: to instantiate a predicate F, an object must exist as a subject of predication (Frege, Russell).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference from 'x fails to exist' to 'x has the property of non-existence' illicitly reifies the absence of an object into a genuine property-bearer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a determinate subject, there is nothing for a property to attach to, so 'characterization' collapses into mere linguistic predication with no metaphysical import.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion demands that to be is to be the value of a bound variable: admitting non-existents as property-exemplifiers smuggles ontological commitment through the back door.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If non-existent objects genuinely exemplify properties, they must be quantified over, making them exist in any robust ontological sense, thereby undermining the actualist/possibilist distinction the claim relies on.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    Characterization just is property exemplification.If an object fails to exist at a possible world, that failure to exist in some s...If non-existent objects genuinely exemplify properties, they must be quantified ...Property exemplification is ontologically loaded: to instantiate a predicate F, ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Quine's criterion demands that to be is to be the value of a bound variable: adm...The inference from 'x fails to exist' to 'x has the property of non-existence' i...While most properties and relations obviously entail existence (e.g., being a ho...Without a determinate subject, there is nothing for a property to attach to, so ...

    Similar

    Non-existent objects can possess properties.89%Non-existent objects may encode properties without exemplifying them.88%While most properties and relations obviously entail existence (e.g., ...86%True propositions can be stated about non-existent objects.86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    However, others (notably Pollock (1985) and Fine (1985)) respond that, while most properties and relations obviously entail existence—being a horse, say, or being taller than—it is far from clear that all do. Notably, if I fail to exist at a world, then that in some sense clearly seems to characterize me at that world and what else is characterization than property exemplification? Thus (these philosophers continue), it seems entirely reasonable to say that, at worlds in which I fail to exist, I
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit