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 Substance is a formal concept with a central structural role in our conceptual scheme, not merely a name for certain important kinds of things in the world.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's hylomorphic substance is individuated by matter and form intrinsic to things, not by structural roles in any conceptual scheme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If substance were merely formal, Aristotle's distinction between primary and secondary substance would collapse into a purely logical taxonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The persistence of individual substances through accidental change is grounded in the thing's own nature, not in our epistemic requirements for re-identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's ontological relativity shows that what counts as a 'thing' is scheme-relative, undermining any claim that substance plays a uniquely privileged structural role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If substance is a formal concept stabilizing our conceptual scheme, rival schemes lacking substance-talk—such as process ontologies—would be conceptually incoherent, yet Whitehead's metaphysics demonstrates they need not be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In the Kantian framework, substance is necessary for the coherence of our conceptual scheme rather than being defined by the intrinsic nature of particular entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The role of substance is to give unity to our spatio-temporal framework and to enable individuation and re-identification of particulars.
      ?

      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.