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 Reflexivity can emerge from relational structures even when not stipulated by definition, as Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles demonstrates.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Identity of indiscernibles conflates logical equivalence with reflexivity; it defines when things are identical, not how reflexivity emerges.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many relational structures (partial orders, strict orderings) are non-reflexive by nature; reflexivity cannot emerge universally from relations alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Claiming reflexivity emerges from relations requires prior reflexive properties already embedded in the definitions of those very relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Identity of indiscernibles shows reflexivity emerges logically: if x and y share all properties, then x=y, making x necessarily related to itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Relational structures can generate reflexivity without explicit stipulation, as symmetry and transitivity often force self-relation mathematically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural emergence of reflexivity from deeper principles is more parsimonious than treating it as an independent axiom requiring separate justification.
?
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.