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
    The arguments of Kripke and Putnam establish only partial... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The arguments of Kripke and Putnam establish only partial essences, not full essences, for natural kinds and individuals.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's own modal argument in Naming and Necessity identifies origin as necessary for individuals but never specifies what conditions suffice to constitute that origin.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Putnam's Twin Earth argument establishes that water must have H2O's microstructure, yet leaves undetermined how much structural deviation still counts as water.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A condition that cannot specify its own boundary conditions—what exactly satisfies it—functions as a partial essence by definitional necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Salmon and Soames demonstrate that Kripkean essentialism yields only de re modal truths about particular properties, not exhaustive membership criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An exhaustive essence would permit resolution of all borderline cases, but Kripke-Putnam frameworks generate systematic indeterminacy in cases like isotopes, newly synthesized compounds, and species hybrids.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A full essence of K requires conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for membership in K.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke and Putnam's arguments establish conditions that are necessary but not sufficient for kind membership or individual identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conditions that are necessary but not sufficient constitute only a partial essence.
      ?

      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 IdentityPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    A condition that cannot specify its own boundary conditions—what exactly satisfi...A full essence of K requires conditions that are both necessary and sufficient f...An exhaustive essence would permit resolution of all borderline cases, but Kripk...Conditions that are necessary but not sufficient constitute only a partial essen...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kripke and Putnam's arguments establish conditions that are necessary but not su...Kripke's own modal argument in Naming and Necessity identifies origin as necessa...Putnam's Twin Earth argument establishes that water must have H2O's microstructu...Salmon and Soames demonstrate that Kripkean essentialism yields only de re modal...

    Similar

    The essences of natural kinds need be neither intrinsic nor possessed ...85%Kripke and Putnam imply that natural kind essences are microstructural...83%Originating from a particular gamete pair is only a partial essence of...82%Conditions that are necessary but not sufficient constitute only a par...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: natural-kinds
    View source passageHide passage
    It is natural to use the expression ‘the essence of …’, which implies sufficiency as well as necessity: possession of the essence of K suffices for membership of K, as well as being necessary for it. According to the foregoing, not all the arguments of Kripke and Putnam establish what the essence of some kind is, rather they establish only what we may call a partial essence, conditions that are necessary but not sufficient. This is clear in some other of Kripke’s arguments. Thus it is only a par
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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