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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.