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 bundle theory cannot account for the existence of Bus... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The bundle theory cannot account for the existence of Bush if his object constituent's bundle contains both the contrary properties of sitting and not sitting.

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?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.The bundle theory, as defended by Hume and Russell, identifies objects strictly with bundles of co-instantiated properties at a time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sitting and not-sitting are contraries that cannot be co-instantiated by any object at the same time, per Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, any bundle theory that admits both properties as constituents of Bush's single bundle generates an impossible object, not merely an inconsistent description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On bundle theory, modal properties of an object are exhausted by the properties actually bundled, leaving no substratum to ground counterfactual variation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a bare particular or haecceity as anchor, the bundle theory cannot distinguish Bush-sitting from a numerically distinct bundle that happens to resemble Bush.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Roderick Chisholm's objection to bundle theory confirms that property variation across modal contexts requires a persistent subject that bundle theory structurally cannot supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If both contrary properties (sitting and not sitting) are included in the bundle, the bundle is inconsistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An inconsistent bundle of properties cannot constitute a coherently existing object.
      ?

      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 IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    An inconsistent bundle of properties cannot constitute a coherently existing obj...If both contrary properties (sitting and not sitting) are included in the bundle...On bundle theory, modal properties of an object are exhausted by the properties ...Roderick Chisholm's objection to bundle theory confirms that property variation ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Sitting and not-sitting are contraries that cannot be co-instantiated by any obj...The bundle theory, as defended by Hume and Russell, identifies objects strictly ...Therefore, any bundle theory that admits both properties as constituents of Bush...Without a bare particular or haecceity as anchor, the bundle theory cannot disti...

    Similar

    The bundle theory cannot account for the truth of 'Bush is not sitting...92%If both contrary properties (sitting and not sitting) are included in ...86%If neither sitting nor not sitting is in the bundle, the proposition i...86%Russell's bundle theory implies the Strong Principle79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions-singular
    View source passageHide passage
    Suppose that, corresponding to (i), the constituent of (10) includes exactly one of the contrary properties of sitting and not sitting: say, not sitting. Then it is hard to see how (10) is true, as it is at t, given that the object constituent is a bundle of properties including the property of not sitting. Suppose that, corresponding to (ii), both properties are among the bundle. Then it is hard to see how Bush exists, given that he is an inconsistent bundle of properties. Finally, suppose that
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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