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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.