Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The supporting argument conflates ontological dependence with logical or constitutive grounding, which are distinct relations in the literature on essence.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Modern grounding literature increasingly treats grounding as unified across ontological and conceptual domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction assumes a sharp divide between being and knowledge that substantive metaphysical arguments often legitimately blur.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practitioners often use 'grounding' to cover all forms of dependence, making the conflation terminologically standard rather than erroneous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ontological dependence concerns what exists; logical grounding concerns what follows from concepts. These answer different questions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A thing can be logically grounded in principles without ontologically depending on them, as mathematics shows.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Conflating these relations obscures whether arguments about essence appeal to existence-claims or conceptual-claims.
?
How convincing is this?
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.