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 Terms like 'individual' function as sortal predicates applicable across indefinitely many entities, not as contextually bound demonstratives.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Context heavily constrains what counts as 'individual': in biology it means organism, in law it means person, in metaphysics it means particular.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Demonstratives can function abstractly ('this argument,' 'that concept'), blurring the proposed distinction between sortals and demonstrative uses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
'Individual' often implicitly gestures to context-specific boundaries rather than applying rigid identity conditions across domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sortal predicates like 'person' or 'artifact' apply consistently across contexts; we use 'individual' with similar cross-contextual stability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Demonstratives require proximity and direct reference; 'individual' functions in abstract discourse far removed from ostensive pointing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Sortal terms carry identity conditions and persistence criteria; 'individual' carries such criteria across indefinite applications.
?
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.