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 Sellars and Owen independently argued that 'large' in 'L1 is large' is a predicate of a different logical type than 'large' in 'Simmias is large'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Both statements use identical predicates with identical meanings; logical type should supervene on semantic content, not ontological category of subjects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If 'large' genuinely has different logical types, we cannot coherently compare L1 and Simmias regarding size, yet Plato's theory of forms requires such comparison.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Type-distinction multiplies types unnecessarily; univocal predicate application with context-dependent reference explains the data more parsimoniously.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Predicates applied to abstract objects (like forms or universals) require different logical structure than predicates applied to concrete particulars.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The property 'largeness' in relation to an abstract standard differs fundamentally from 'largeness' as a concrete physical property instantiated in individuals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Type-distinction explains why we can meaningfully deny contradictions: L1 is large but not-large in different respects requires different predicate types.
?
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.