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
    Plantinga's view can account for the truth of claims abou... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Plantinga's view can account for the truth of claims about a possible child of Portman and Bush.

    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.On Plantinga's view, there is an uninstantiated individual essence that could have been instantiated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Had that individual essence been instantiated, it would have been instantiated by something parented by Portman and Bush.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Kripke's causal-historical account, names and genuine singular terms require an actual grounding event of dubbing or baptism in a real individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's uninstantiated individual essences lack any causal-historical anchor, making purported singular propositions about them indistinguishable from general existential claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that cannot distinguish singular from general propositions about possible individuals fails to vindicate the specifically singular truth conditions it was introduced to explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Individual essences, as purely qualitative or haecceitistic entities, cannot be individuated prior to the existence of the individual they are essences of.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an individual essence cannot be identified without reference to a non-existent individual, positing it merely relocates, rather than resolves, the problem of singular reference to mere possibilia.
      ?

      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

    A theory that cannot distinguish singular from general propositions about possib...Had that individual essence been instantiated, it would have been instantiated b...If an individual essence cannot be identified without reference to a non-existen...Individual essences, as purely qualitative or haecceitistic entities, cannot be ...
    +3 moreShow less
    On Kripke's causal-historical account, names and genuine singular terms require ...On Plantinga's view, there is an uninstantiated individual essence that could ha...Plantinga's uninstantiated individual essences lack any causal-historical anchor...

    Similar

    Linsky and Zalta's view can account for the truth of claims about a po...97%Possibilism can account for the truth of claims about merely possible ...93%The BF instance is falsified by the case of Bergoglio's children77%The formula 'there exists an x such that x is possibly a child of Berg...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions-singular
    View source passageHide passage
    The possibilist maintains that what actually exists is a proper subset of what exists. So, while nothing in the domain of the actual world could have been Portman and Bush's child, there are things in the most inclusive domain of quantification, which includes merely possible individuals, that are parented by Portman and Bush in some possible worlds. On Plantinga's view, there is an uninstantiated individual essence that could have been instantiated and, had it been instantiated, it would have b
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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