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 of determinates on their determinable is explained by Armstrong's partial identity account.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's account presupposes a prior metric unit, but the choice of unit is conventional, not ontologically grounded in the universal itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the decomposition into unit-length sums is conventional, then the partial identity relation is not a real ontological relation but a representational artifact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A merely representational artifact cannot ground genuine asymmetric metaphysical dependence between properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Determinable properties like 'colored' apply to phenomenal qualia whose intrinsic character cannot be decomposed into sums of simpler universals (Jackson 1982, Levine 1983).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If even one determinable-determinate pair resists the partial identity analysis, the account fails as a general explanation of asymmetric dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Armstrong's account thus conflates a structural feature of quantitative properties with a universal account of the determinate-determinable relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.On Armstrong's account, determinate lengths are constituted by specific sums of unit length universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Instantiating a specific sum of unit lengths entails instantiating the determinable property of length.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Instantiating length does not entail any particular sum of unit lengths.
      ?

      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.