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 ball has the property of redness' is, strictly speak... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    'The ball has the property of redness' is, strictly speaking, untrue

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.'The ball has the property of redness' does commit to the existence of the property of redness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are no such things as properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sentence that commits to the existence of entities that do not exist is strictly speaking untrue
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Predicates like 'is red' can be understood as primitive predications without ontological commitment to abstract property-entities (Quine, 'On What There Is').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'the ball is red' is true and 'the ball has the property of redness' is merely a stylistic variant, both sentences carry identical truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sentence that is merely a grammatical paraphrase of a true sentence cannot be strictly untrue without collapsing the distinction between ontology and grammar.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Immanent realism (Armstrong) holds that properties exist as wholly located universals instantiated in particular objects, not as abstract Platonic entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If properties exist immanently in the ball itself, P2—'there are no such things as properties'—is false, and the supporting argument loses its key premise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The denial of abstract properties does not entail the denial of all conceptions of properties, so the conclusion overgeneralizes from one contested ontological position.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    'The ball has the property of redness' does commit to the existence of the prope...A sentence that commits to the existence of entities that do not exist is strict...A sentence that is merely a grammatical paraphrase of a true sentence cannot be ...If 'the ball is red' is true and 'the ball has the property of redness' is merel...
    +5 moreShow less
    If properties exist immanently in the ball itself, P2—'there are no such things ...Immanent realism (Armstrong) holds that properties exist as wholly located unive...Predicates like 'is red' can be understood as primitive predications without ont...The denial of abstract properties does not entail the denial of all conceptions ...There are no such things as properties

    Similar

    'The ball has the property of redness' does commit to the existence of...92%If one accepts that 'the ball has the property of redness' is true, on...89%The expression 'the property of redness' in 'the ball has the property...84%Sentences like 'Mars is red' do not entail the existence of properties...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    In this sentence, the expression ‘the property of redness’ seems to be a singular term — it seems to denote the property of redness; thus, using the above criterion of ontological commitment, if we think (R) is true, then it would seem, we are committed to believing in the property of redness. But there are two different responses that nominalists can make to this. First, they can endorse paraphrase nominalism (defined a few paragraphs back) with respect to (R). If they do this, they will claim
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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