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 Persons are paradigmatically subjects of experience, not abstract qualitative instances—Strawson's 'basic particulars' are irreducible to property bundles.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The 'irreducibility' claim relies on intuition unsupported by empirical evidence; neuroscience suggests persons just are complex physical systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Positing non-property-bundle substrates introduces mysterious non-categorical entities that violate parsimony without explanatory gain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Property bundles with appropriate causal-relational structure can ground subjective unity and agency without invoking basic particulars.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Consciousness and subjective experience require a unified locus of awareness; property bundles lack the integration necessary for phenomenal unity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Personal identity persists through qualitative change; a bundle theory cannot ground identity conditions across time without an underlying substrate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We directly apprehend ourselves as agents and experiencers, not as mere collections of properties; introspection reveals an irreducible subject.
?
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.