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
    The properties shared by all and only the members of a na... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There are no natural kind universals (e.g., the universal of being gold or of being a human).

    The properties shared by all and only the members of a natural kind are typically very complex.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Even if a complex universal could be identified for a natural kind, there is no ...If there were natural kinds, they would be universals.There are no natural kind universals (e.g., the universal of being gold or of be...Very complex property clusters do not qualify as genuine universals.

    Similar

    Natural kinds require distinctive intrinsic natural properties common ...86%All things of a given kind share the same nature in some sense81%Natural kinds require certain distinctive intrinsic natural properties...81%Gilbert assumes species can be defined by properties universally share...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: natural-kinds
    View source passageHide passage
    According to David Armstrong (1997, 67–8) “The kinds mark true joints in nature. But it is not clear that we require an independent and irreducible category of universal to accommodate the kinds”. Armstrong’s view is naturalistic, since there are genuine natural divisions; but he is also resistant to realism. If there were natural kinds they would be universals. But the properties shared by all and only the members of a kind will typically be very complex. For example, he considers whether there

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective