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
    Nothing can be separate from itself. — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The parts of the Form of the F in A, B, and C must be numerically distinct from one another.

    Nothing can be separate from itself.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Personal Identity3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If the same part of the Form of the F existed as a whole in A, B, and C simultan...The parts of the Form of the F in A, B, and C must be numerically distinct from ...Therefore, the part of the Form of the F present in A cannot be identical to the...

    Similar

    Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P from NP.83%Chaos is impossible for separable Hamiltonians.82%Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P and NP.81%Space cannot exist separately from body.79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    Having assimilated Socrates’ day analogy to the Piece-of-Pie Model, Parmenides turns to a criticism of this second version of the Pie Model. Suppose, then, the same three sensible F things—A, B, and C—in separate places at the same time. According to Causality, A, B, and C are F by virtue of partaking of the F, and hence A, B, and C partake of the F. Given the Piece-of-Pie Model, there is a part of the F in each of A, B, and C. If the same absurdity generated from the Whole Pie Model is to be av

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective