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 name 'sun' may be truly and properly applied to any substance that possesses the combination of sensible qualities by which things called 'sun' are distinguished from other substances.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Natural kind terms like 'sun' are rigid designators that pick out their referents via causal-historical links, not clusters of sensible qualities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke and Putnam demonstrate that we can be systematically wrong about the sensible qualities of a natural kind while still referring to that kind correctly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, a substance possessing all the nominal qualities of the sun but lacking its underlying nature would not be a true sun, only a qualitative duplicate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's own account concedes that real essences—the internal constitutions of substances—determine which sensible qualities reliably co-occur in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If nominal essence is parasitic on real essence for its stability and projectibility, then species membership cannot be grounded in nominal essence alone without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Distinguishing substances into species by names is founded on nominal essence, not real essence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The nominal essence of the sun is the combination of sensible qualities by which anything called 'sun' is distinguished from other substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A 'true sun' is anything to which the name 'sun' may be truly and properly applied.
      ?

      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.