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 property 'actually being on David's right' is a necessary property of Paul, not a contingent one.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rigidification fixes reference across worlds but does not transform a contingent relational fact into a necessary intrinsic property of Paul.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A property whose instantiation depends on Paul's actual spatial relation to David is still grounded in a contingent state of affairs, regardless of how it is linguistically indexed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Necessary properties must be ones a thing could not fail to have; Paul could have existed without David, so no relational property involving David can be necessary to Paul.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kaplan's own framework distinguishes necessity (truth at all worlds) from what is merely 'dthat'-fixed: a rigidified description is not thereby metaphysically necessary (Kaplan, 'Demonstratives', 1989).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'actually being on David's right' were a necessary property of Paul, counterpart theory would be unable to evaluate Paul's modal properties without trivializing all actual relational facts as necessary, an unacceptable result (Lewis, 'On the Plurality of Worlds', 1986).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.For any world w, Paul has the rigidified property of actually being on David's right in w just in case in the actual world Paul has the contingent property of being on David's right.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rigidifying a contingent property produces a property whose extension is fixed by the actual world and thus holds necessarily.
      ?

      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.