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
    Postulating that states of affairs have parts creates a p... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Postulating that states of affairs have parts creates a problem for the theory of universals

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's states of affairs require a 'non-mereological' mode of combination, yet he simultaneously invokes parthood, generating an internal tension in his ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the combinatorial glue binding universals and particulars is itself a further entity, Bradley's regress re-emerges within Armstrong's own framework, undermining the theory's explanatory closure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any theory that posits both irreducible combination and mereological parthood for the same entities is committed to two distinct and competing composition relations, violating ontological parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fine's work on arbitrary objects and Wiggins's mereological essentialism jointly entail that objects with identical proper parts cannot be numerically distinct under standard extensional mereology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relational states of affairs Rab and Rba share all the same constituents—the relation R and the relata a and b—so extensional mereology collapses them into a single entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since ordered relations demonstrably produce distinct states of affairs, the parthood framework cannot account for relational order without abandoning extensional mereology, exposing a foundational inadequacy in the theory of universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Saying that a, b, and R are parts of the state of affairs Rab implies composition from those parts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No two distinct entities can be composed of exactly the same parts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinct state of affairs Rba would also be composed of a, b, and R
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Any theory that posits both irreducible combination and mereological parthood fo...Armstrong's states of affairs require a 'non-mereological' mode of combination, ...Fine's work on arbitrary objects and Wiggins's mereological essentialism jointly...If the combinatorial glue binding universals and particulars is itself a further...
    +6 moreShow less
    No two distinct entities can be composed of exactly the same partsRelational states of affairs Rab and Rba share all the same constituents—the rel...Saying that a, b, and R are parts of the state of affairs Rab implies compositio...Since ordered relations demonstrably produce distinct states of affairs, the par...The distinct state of affairs Rba would also be composed of a, b, and RTherefore Rab and Rba would be identical, which contradicts their distinctness

    Similar

    A theory of universals must postulate states of affairs (per Armstrong...85%The problem arises specifically from structural universals and states ...84%Defenders of universals can escape the problem by accepting that some ...83%Rejecting structural universals and states of affairs removes the basi...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: nominalism-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    This, in itself, is not an argument against universals per se but only against structural universals. Even so, if a theory of universals must postulate states of affairs, as Armstrong thinks it must, then the argument can be made to work against universals in general. For the state of affairs that Rab (where R is any non-symmetrical relation) necessitates that b exists, which seems to be a necessary connection between wholly distinct existences. And saying that a, b and R are parts of the state
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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