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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Relations are accidents of single subjects, not joint properties of pairs of subjects.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.