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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The supporting argument's premise that Paul 'might have existed' without this property assumes modal separability that essentialists about origins explicitly deny.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even essentialists distinguish between what grounds identity and what counts as logically possible—modal separability challenges the latter, not the former.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument conflates 'Paul couldn't exist without property X' with 'we can't coherently imagine Paul without X'—different modal questions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Essentialists need not deny modal separability applies to non-essential properties; they only deny it for essential ones like origin.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Essentialists about origins claim origins are essential to identity, making counterfactuals about different origins logically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modal separability assumes properties can be absent while identity persists—directly contradicting origin essentialism's core commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Arguments assuming Paul could lack origin-properties smuggle in non-essentialist modal logic without justifying it against essentialist constraints.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42