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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The Linsky-Zalta account can explain the intuition that Bush might not have existed by appealing to concreteness as a contingent property.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'existing as nonconcrete' and 'not existing' is not grounded in ordinary modal intuitions but stipulated by the theory itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Bush 'exists' in all possible worlds as an abstract object, then our intuition that he might not have existed is not explained but rather explained away.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that systematically reinterprets modal intuitions rather than accommodating them cannot claim those intuitions as evidence in its favor.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's modal realism about names holds that names are rigid designators tracking individuals through possible worlds, not abstract surrogates for concrete counterparts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On the Kripkean picture, Bush is essentially a concrete human being, making nonconcrete 'Bush' in a possible world a misdescription rather than a genuine modal alternative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Linsky and Zalta's account therefore conflicts with the Kripkean essentialist framework that originally motivates the puzzle about singular propositions they claim to solve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Linsky and Zalta claim that being concrete is a contingent property of objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bush might have been nonconcrete in some possible world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When we consider a world in which Bush is nonconcrete, we are inclined to say he does not exist there.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42