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 created/discovered dichotomy conflates epistemic access with ontological status, leaving room for a Platonism about created abstracta as defended by Levinson and Thomasson.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If abstracta are created, they cannot possess the mind-independence and necessity characteristic of paradigmatic abstract objects like numbers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim dissolves the distinction between abstract and concrete; if abstracta depend on human creation, they're really dependent particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thomasson's account conflates conceptual dependence with ontological dependence, making created abstracta closer to social constructs than objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic access (how we know things) is logically distinct from ontological status (what exists), so conflating them commits a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Artifacts like symphonies can be genuinely created yet remain abstract objects with determinate properties independent of mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Platonism about created abstracta avoids both pure Platonism's puzzle of causation and nominalism's inability to ground mathematical discourse.
      ?

      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.