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 proposition <there are trees> is actually abstract — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The proposition <there are trees> is actually abstract

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The proposition <there are trees> is false in a world without concrete entities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a proposition is false in a world, it must exist in that world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore <there are trees> possibly exists in a world without concrete entities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P2 is false: a proposition can be false in a world without existing in that world (truth is world-relative, existence is not).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Plantinga's own actualist semantics, propositions have truth-values at worlds they are merely 'about', without being located there.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If propositions need not exist at worlds where they have truth-values, the inference to possible existence without concreta collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P5 smuggles in essentialism about abstractness, but Linsky and Zalta's 'contingent abstract objects' view permits entities that are abstract in some worlds and concrete in others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If abstractness is not essential to propositions, a proposition that exists without concreta in some world may still be actually concrete, defeating the modal transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    If a proposition is false in a world, it must exist in that worldIf abstractness is not essential to propositions, a proposition that exists with...If propositions need not exist at worlds where they have truth-values, the infer...On Plantinga's own actualist semantics, propositions have truth-values at worlds...
    +6 moreShow less
    P2 is false: a proposition can be false in a world without existing in that worl...P5 smuggles in essentialism about abstractness, but Linsky and Zalta's 'continge...The proposition <there are trees> is false in a world without concrete entitiesTherefore <there are trees> possibly exists in a world without concrete entitiesWhatever is possibly abstract is actually abstract (given that abstractness is a...Whatever possibly exists in the absence of concrete entities is possibly abstrac...

    Similar

    The proposition <there are trees> is false in a world without concrete...82%The proposition <2+2=4> is in fact abstract79%Whatever is possibly abstract is actually abstract (given that abstrac...77%If abstractness is an essential feature, then whatever is possibly abs...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions
    View source passageHide passage
    A parallel “easy argument” can be given for the abstractness of at least some propositions. &lt;2+2=4&gt; does not entail the existence of concrete entities. So it is possible for it to be true (and so to exist) in the absence of concrete entities. Thus, it is possibly abstract. Assuming, contra Linksy and Zalta (1996), that abstractness is, necessarily, an essential feature of abstract entities, then it follows that &lt;2+2=4&gt; is in fact abstract. One might want to extend such arguments to c
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit