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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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