The switching objection (P5) presupposes a context-independent carrier of properties, but a thoroughgoing relationist denies any such substrate, dissolving the apparent absurdity of values appearing and disappearing.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Context-independent carrier of properties(as a concept in metaphysics about what things fundamentally are): A underlying thing or substance that exists on its own (without depending on circumstances) and holds onto qualities—like how a basketball stays the same ball whether it's red or blue.
Relationalist / Relationism(as an alternative metaphysical framework): A philosophical view that says things don't have fixed, independent properties—instead, properties only exist in relation to other things, like how 'tall' only makes sense when compared to something else.
Substrate(as the underlying physical foundation being discussed): The physical stuff or material that something is made of or runs on; in this case, the brain as the physical basis for mental states.
The switching objection(as a specific criticism in metaphysics): A philosophical argument (labeled P5) that challenges a particular theory by pointing out an apparent problem: if properties can appear and disappear from something, what stays the same underneath those changes?

Based on where you are in your exploration