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
    Substratum's claim to substancehood rests not on meeting ... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Substratum's claim to substancehood rests not on meeting the tests of substancehood itself, but on being what enables particular kinds of substances to be substances.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Substratum is ontologically basic only in an empty sense: it is the substancehood of everything without explaining the nature of anything.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Substratum meets the durability criterion only in an empty way, having no positive nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Substratum functions as a bearer of predication but, being a component only in atoms, is not the subject of change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's prime matter is itself no determinate kind yet functions as a genuine ontological constituent enabling substantial change in the Metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference from 'has no positive nature' to 'fails substancehood criteria' conflates categorical and transcendental roles in ontological structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Lowe's four-category ontology shows that ontological roles can be asymmetrically distributed without the grounding entity being deficient relative to grounded entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's 'something I know not what' establishes substratum as explanatorily necessary precisely because qualities require a bearer distinct from themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An entity can ground substancehood in others without itself requiring the same grounding criteria, just as a foundation need not itself be founded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Topics

    Personal Identity

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    An entity can ground substancehood in others without itself requiring the same g...Aristotle's prime matter is itself no determinate kind yet functions as a genuin...Locke's 'something I know not what' establishes substratum as explanatorily nece...Lowe's four-category ontology shows that ontological roles can be asymmetrically...
    +5 moreShow less
    Substratum functions as a bearer of predication but, being a component only in a...Substratum is itself no kind of thing and therefore no kind of individual or stu...Substratum is ontologically basic only in an empty sense: it is the substancehoo...Substratum meets the durability criterion only in an empty way, having no positi...The inference from 'has no positive nature' to 'fails substancehood criteria' co...

    Similar

    Bodies are posited as substances.82%Composites are not themselves substances but are constituted by substa...81%Bucephalus is not a substance but a collection of simple substances81%Form is substance79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: substance
    View source passageHide passage
    First, consider substratum. (i) Ontological basicness. There is a sense in which it is ontologically basic, but it is a rather empty sense: it is the substancehood of everything, without explaining the nature of anything. (ii) Durability. Again, it meets the criterion, but in an empty way. It is difficult to see how it could be destroyed (like Aristotle’s prime matter) but it has no positive nature. (iii) and (iv) Bearer of predication and subject of change. As with matter for Aristotle, it meet
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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