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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The asymmetric dependence between property instances and substances is best expressed in terms of particular instances rather than properties and substances in general.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Universals, not tropes, best explain why distinct substances share genuinely identical properties, requiring type-level dependence relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If dependence holds only between particulars, the systematic recurrence of qualitative similarity across substances becomes an unexplained brute fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Armstrong's truthmaker theory grounds property instantiation in states of affairs involving universals, making particular-level dependence derivative rather than fundamental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian substantial forms ground property instances at the species level, meaning the dependence relation is mediated by kind-membership, not bare particularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Expressing dependence purely at the token level cannot account for why a particular redness instance depends on a substance *as a bearer*, rather than on its specific haecceity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Talking about properties in general and substances in general obscures the relevant ontological relationship.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The dependence relation holds precisely between a particular property instance and the particular substance it belongs to.
      ?

      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.