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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    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