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
    The claim's logical force presupposes a hylomorphic or bu... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, and F and G are incompatible properties, then x is not simple.

    The claim's logical force presupposes a hylomorphic or bundle-theoretic ontology of property instantiation that a pure act theorist is under no obligation to accept.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Pure act theory denies substance-substrate ontologies, so arguments presupposing bundles or hylomorphism unfairly assume competing metaphysical frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theorist's ontological commitments constrain which logical arguments they must accept; rejecting an ontology permits rejecting dependent arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pure act theorists have developed internally consistent alternatives explaining property instantiation without hylomorphic or bundlist resources.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Core logical principles (non-contradiction, identity of indiscernibles) hold regardless of whether one endorses hylomorphism, so the claim may prove too much.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If pure act theory can escape all ontological presuppositions, it becomes unfalsifiable and thereby loses explanatory purchase on property instantiation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting a claim's ontological presuppositions doesn't immunize one from its logical force if that force derives from basic logical laws, not metaphysics.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Against an attribute of God1 linkedDivine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    A theorist's ontological commitments constrain which logical arguments they must...Core logical principles (non-contradiction, identity of indiscernibles) hold reg...If pure act theory can escape all ontological presuppositions, it becomes unfals...If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, and F and G ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Pure act theorists have developed internally consistent alternatives explaining ...Pure act theory denies substance-substrate ontologies, so arguments presupposing...Rejecting a claim's ontological presuppositions doesn't immunize one from its lo...

    Details

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