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 supervenience of A-properties on A-properties is expl... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The supervenience of A-properties on A-properties is explained by property identity.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.If property A is identical to property B, there cannot be a difference with respect to A without a difference with respect to B.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Property identity claims explain why certain supervenience relations hold necessarily.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience is a modal covariation relation that can hold between distinct properties, as Jaegwon Kim's 1984 framework explicitly allows.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If property identity were required for supervenience, then non-reductive physicalism—which posits mental-physical supervenience without identity—would be incoherent by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, property identity is sufficient but not necessary for supervenience, making it an incomplete explanation even for necessary supervenience cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grounding theorists like Kit Fine distinguish metaphysical explanation from mere modal covariation, arguing that identity claims are too weak to explain supervenience directionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Property identity is symmetric, but supervenience is typically asymmetric: A-properties supervene on B-properties without B-properties supervening on A-properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An explanation that appeals only to identity cannot account for this asymmetry, revealing that identity-based explanations are structurally inadequate for supervenience.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    An explanation that appeals only to identity cannot account for this asymmetry, ...Grounding theorists like Kit Fine distinguish metaphysical explanation from mere...If property A is identical to property B, there cannot be a difference with resp...If property identity were required for supervenience, then non-reductive physica...
    +4 moreShow less
    Property identity claims explain why certain supervenience relations hold necess...Property identity is symmetric, but supervenience is typically asymmetric: A-pro...Supervenience is a modal covariation relation that can hold between distinct pro...Therefore, property identity is sufficient but not necessary for supervenience, ...

    Similar

    Property identity claims explain why certain supervenience relations h...81%Global supervenience of A on B requires only that worlds with the same...80%A formal theory of properties requires the ability to express basic fa...79%Necessary properties and impossible properties supervene on any proper...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: supervenience
    View source passageHide passage
    Sometimes it is easy to see what explains a supervenience thesis. Consider the examples of trivial supervenience relations from Section 3.5. It is obvious why there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference if A is a set of necessary or impossible properties—namely, because there cannot be an A-difference at all. The supervenience relation is explained by the necessity or impossibility of the supervening properties. It is also obvious why A-properties supervene on A-properties. Of cours
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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