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 property 'being on David's right' is not an individual essence of Paul.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If haecceitism is true, each individual has a primitive thisness that constitutes their essence, irreducible to qualitative properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relational properties like 'being on David's right' may be grounded in haecceitistic facts about Paul's de re modal profile.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, dismissing relational properties as non-essential presupposes anti-haecceitism, which is itself a contested metaphysical commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Essentialism about origins (Kripke, Salmon) holds that an individual's essential properties include those fixed by their causal-historical origins.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Paul's spatial relation to David is constitutive of the very event that individuates Paul in a world, it may be origin-essential, not merely accidental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's premise that Paul 'might have existed' without this property assumes modal separability that essentialists about origins explicitly deny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An individual essence must be a property Paul could not exist without, and that only Paul could have.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Paul might have existed without having the property of being on David's right.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Charles might have had the property of being on David's right instead of Paul.
      ?

      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