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 of similarity between particulars must have a r... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Resemblance nominalism is false.

    Relations of similarity between particulars must have a real foundation in the things that are similar.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A view that makes similarity relations self-explanatory cannot account for their...Resemblance nominalism holds that similarity relations are primitive and self-ex...Resemblance nominalism is false.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Relations of similarity between two particulars cannot be self-explana...94%Relations of similarity between particulars require some explanation.90%Objective resemblances cannot be brute facts; there must be something ...83%That explanation must be grounded in the nature of the things that are...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: medieval-haecceity
    View source passageHide passage
    The point is that relations of similarity between two particulars cannot be self-explanatory; they must have some explanation (some “real foundation”) in the things that are similar. This is amongst other things an argument against resemblance nominalism. But it is also supposed to be an argument against the view that a common nature could be numerically identical in each instantiation. As Paul Vincent Spade helpfully comments in loc. (ftnt. 8), “for mediaeval authors … a thing x is not (qualita

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective