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 idea of the necessity of the past may be confused.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The fixity of the past is not grounded merely in causal intuitions but in the logical principle that what has occurred cannot be made not to have occurred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This logical irreversibility is distinct from causal necessity and survives Ockhamist critiques of causal modality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aristotle's sea-battle argument and subsequent medieval treatments show that temporal asymmetry tracks logical, not merely causal, necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pike's 1965 formulation of the foreknowledge argument derives the necessity of the past from transfer-of-necessity principles, not from confused causal intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's notion of 'broadly logical necessity' applied to past truths provides a rigorous modal framework that is not reducible to causability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We have inherited from Ockham the idea that the past has a kind of necessity for which we can formulate an analogue of the formal principles of logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.But the intuitions supporting such a form of necessity are largely intuitions about causability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The modalities of causability/non-causability do not parallel necessity, possibility, and impossibility.
      ?

      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.