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
    Relations are accidents of single subjects, not joint pro... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Relations are accidents of single subjects, not joint properties of pairs of subjects.

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons 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

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reductive realists treat Simmias's tallness as something belonging only to Simmias and Socrates's shortness as something belonging only to Socrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-reductive realists likewise treat relational accidents as belonging to single subjects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.On the paradigmatic analysis, what makes 'aRb' true is a pair of monadic accidents F and G, each belonging to a single subject, not a joint accident belonging to both.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Some relations, such as simultaneity and mutual exclusion, are irreducibly symmetric and cannot be grounded in ordered pairs of monadic accidents without distortion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If aRb and bRa are grounded in the same pair of accidents F(a) and G(b), then the asymmetry of directed relations like 'x is taller than y' becomes inexplicable on the monadic accident model.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bertrand Russell argued in 'The Principles of Mathematics' that no analysis into monadic predicates can capture the order and direction essential to asymmetric relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medieval realists like Walter Burley and later Leibniz's critics recognized that a relation like 'Paris is north of Rome' holds between cities, not within either city taken alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relational truth were fully grounded in intrinsic monadic accidents of each relatum, then changing only the relata's spatial positions—without altering any internal accident—could not change the truth-value of the relation, which is empirically false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This 'Cambridge change' problem, articulated by Geach and implicit in Ockham's skepticism about real relations, shows that monadic accident accounts cannot distinguish genuine relational change from mere Cambridge change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Bertrand Russell argued in 'The Principles of Mathematics' that no analysis into...If aRb and bRa are grounded in the same pair of accidents F(a) and G(b), then th...If relational truth were fully grounded in intrinsic monadic accidents of each r...Medieval realists like Walter Burley and later Leibniz's critics recognized that...
    +5 moreShow less
    Non-reductive realists likewise treat relational accidents as belonging to singl...On the paradigmatic analysis, what makes 'aRb' true is a pair of monadic acciden...Reductive realists treat Simmias's tallness as something belonging only to Simmi...Some relations, such as simultaneity and mutual exclusion, are irreducibly symme...This 'Cambridge change' problem, articulated by Geach and implicit in Ockham's s...

    Similar

    Even relational situations involving only a single accident must be co...82%Relations must be conceived as involving a pair of correlatives, even ...80%On the paradigmatic analysis, what makes 'aRb' true is a pair of monad...78%If extension were an accident belonging to the Aristotelian category o...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: relations-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    As it turns out, it is not only reductive realists, but non-reductive realists as well that speak of relations as accidents of single subjects—that is, of Simmias’s tallness as something belonging only to him, of Socrates’s shortness as something belonging only to him, and so on for all other particular relations. In light of what has just been said, therefore, we can clarify our understanding of the paradigmatic analysis of relational situations. As indicated earlier, this analysis requires tha
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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