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 The argument from possibility may be a specific version of the argument from necessary truths
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Modal facts about possibility are ontological, concerning how things could be, not merely logical or semantic necessary truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Kripke's a posteriori necessary truths demonstrate that necessity and logical/conceptual truth are distinct categories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument from possibility draws on metaphysical modality, which requires a separate grounding story from abstract necessary truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Leibniz's argument from possibility grounds possible essences in the divine intellect, making God prior to necessary truths, not their co-explanandum.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God is the ontological ground of necessary truths, collapsing the two arguments conflates the explanandum with its explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Truths about what is possible are necessary truths
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The argument from possibility derives conclusions from facts about what is possible
?
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.