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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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