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 Predicating 'dead' of a corpse commits a category error: corpses are not the kind of thing that can be alive or dead.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A corpse is the dead body of something that was alive; 'dead' describes a relational property (loss of vital functions), not an intrinsic feature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If category errors render statements nonsensical, 'the corpse is dead' would be meaningless; yet it clearly conveys intelligible information.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
'Dead' can apply to anything that transitions from functioning to non-functioning (engines, batteries, organisms), making it a valid cross-category predicate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Category errors occur when properties are predicated of things lacking the necessary ontological type to possess them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Life and death are properties applicable only to organisms with metabolic processes; corpses lack such processes by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Calling a corpse 'dead' commits a logical error similar to calling a number 'loud' — applying predicates outside the proper domain.
?
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.