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 Linsky-Zalta-Williamson position that necessarily everything necessarily exists is only as plausible as its explanation of the intuitive contingency of ordinary objects.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Williamson's necessitism explains contingency intuitions via a distinction between being a concrete human and merely existing as an abstract individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The intuition that Bush 'might not have existed' is fully accommodated as the truth that Bush might have been non-concrete, not non-existent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A position that successfully reinterprets an intuition in terms of a nearby, well-defined distinction has not failed to account for it but has deepened our understanding of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The plausibility of a metaphysical position is not solely determined by its alignment with pre-theoretic intuitions, as Kripke himself showed intuitions can be systematically revised by rigorous modal semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessitism gains independent support from the logical advantages of constant-domain quantified modal logic, including the validity of the Barcan formula and avoidance of possibilist ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a thesis earns support from multiple independent theoretical virtues, its plausibility cannot be reduced to the success of any single explanatory task.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ordinary objects like Bush intuitively seem to exist contingently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If being and existence are necessary properties, this intuition must be explained away rather than taken at face value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A position that cannot account for strong intuitions about contingency is weakened to the extent of that failure.
      ?

      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.