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 small must have parts. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The small must be large.

    The small must have parts.

    Philosophy 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.Combining Causality with the Piece-of-Pie Model entails that small things are small by getting a part of the small.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are small things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Form of Smallness is itself simple and partless, as Plato argues in the Phaedo that Forms are non-composite (78c).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Form of Smallness has no parts, then participation in Smallness cannot consist in receiving a part of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, small things can be small without the Form of Smallness having parts to distribute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's hylomorphism allows a thing to possess a property by instantiating a form, not by containing a piece of an external entity (Metaphysics VII).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If instantiation rather than mereological partition explains predication, the Piece-of-Pie Model underlying P1 is unjustified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Piece-of-Pie Model smuggles in a false assumption that causal participation must be partitive rather than relational.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedCausation2 linked

    Related

    Aristotle's hylomorphism allows a thing to possess a property by instantiating a...Being larger than something entails being large in some way.Combining Causality with the Piece-of-Pie Model entails that small things are sm...If X is a part of Y, then Y is larger than X.
    +7 moreShow less
    If instantiation rather than mereological partition explains predication, the Pi...If the Form of Smallness has no parts, then participation in Smallness cannot co...The Form of Smallness is itself simple and partless, as Plato argues in the Phae...The Piece-of-Pie Model smuggles in a false assumption that causal participation ...

    Similar

    The small must be large, because the small has parts and anything that...83%There are small things.80%The small must be large.75%Any part of X must be smaller than X.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    The result of combining Causality with the Piece-of-Pie Model entails that small things (other than the small) are small by getting a part of the small. This result entails that if there are any small things (as indeed there are), then the small must have parts. But if X is a part of Y, then Y is larger than X (see above), and hence Y is (in some way) large. Consequently, the small must be large. But, by Self-Predication, the small is small. So the small is both large and small. But this result

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    The small must be large.
    There are small things.
    Therefore, small things can be small without the Form of Smallness having parts ...