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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42