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
    The worry about guaranteeing mutual exclusiveness and joi... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The worry about guaranteeing mutual exclusiveness and joint exhaustiveness of ontological categories can be met by defining categories in ways that logically guarantee these properties.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?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.Thomasson (1999) distinguishes categories in terms of what relations of dependence a purported entity has or lacks on mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A second dimension distinguishes categories in terms of what relations of dependence a purported entity has or lacks on spatio-temporally located objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The law of the excluded middle alone ensures mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness for categories defined by presence or absence of a relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal mutual exclusiveness requires categories to be defined over a fixed, well-determined domain of entities, but ontological inquiry cannot presuppose such a domain without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's indeterminacy of ontological commitment shows that what counts as an 'entity' subject to categorical sorting is itself theory-relative, undermining the logical guarantee's scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A logical partition of a domain that is itself ontologically contested produces formal exhaustiveness without genuine ontological exhaustiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dependence relations used in Thomasson's scheme—e.g., dependence on mental states—are themselves ontologically loaded predicates requiring prior categorical distinctions to be well-defined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the binary presence-or-absence of a dependence relation admits of borderline cases or gradations, as Aristotle's analogical predication and contemporary truthmaker theorists like Lowe argue, the law of excluded middle does not straightforwardly apply to yield exhaustive disjoint categories.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    Logically guarantee(as used in logic)
    To make something necessarily true by definition or rational reasoning, so that it must be true in all cases.
    Ontology(Carnap argues this enterprise is based on a mistake)
    The philosophical discipline that tries to answer hard questions about what there really is.
    joint exhaustiveness(Formal requirement for a well-formed system of ontological categories)
    A property of a set of categories such that every entity falls under at least one category.
    mutual exclusiveness(Formal requirement for a well-formed system of ontological categories)
    A property of a set of categories such that no entity can belong to more than one category at the same level.
    ontological categories(Thomasson's system; used to address mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness requirements)
    Classifications of purported entities distinguished by the relations of dependence they have or lack — specifically dependence on mental states and dependence on spatio-temporally located objects.

    Related

    A logical partition of a domain that is itself ontologically contested produces ...A second dimension distinguishes categories in terms of what relations of depend...Dependence relations used in Thomasson's scheme—e.g., dependence on mental state...Formal mutual exclusiveness requires categories to be defined over a fixed, well...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the binary presence-or-absence of a dependence relation admits of borderline ...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: categories
    View source passageHide passage
    The specific worries about (1) guaranteeing the mutual exclusiveness and joint exhaustiveness of the categories, and (2) whether or not any single system of categories could purport to be uniquely correct, can, however, be met by certain ways of formulating ontological categories. The first sort of worry can be met by ensuring that categories (of the same level) are defined in ways that guarantee mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness. Thus, e.g., Thomasson (1999, chapter 8) distinguishes categ
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Quine's indeterminacy of ontological commitment shows that what counts as an 'en...
    The law of the excluded middle alone ensures mutual exclusiveness and exhaustive...
    Thomasson (1999) distinguishes categories in terms of what relations of dependen...

    Similar

    Within an Aristotelian ontology, the only available ontological catego...78%These categories are valid for both cognitive (epistemological) and on...78%If a domain as well-established as mathematics can span multiple ontol...78%Under an entailment criterion, a theory is committed to universals if ...77%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit