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
    Theorists who deny that an organism may continue its exis... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Theorists who deny that an organism may continue its existence as a corpse must deny that, as concerns corpses, being dead implies having died.

    Afterlife & Death
    ?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.According to such theorists, organisms and their corpses are two different objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Corpses are never alive, according to these theorists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If corpses were never alive, then they never died, so being dead (as applied to corpses) cannot imply having died.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Four-dimensionalist ontology permits an organism and its corpse to be temporal stages of a single persisting object, not numerically distinct objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the corpse-stage is a later temporal part of the same four-dimensional worm as the living organism, then the corpse did undergo the event of dying at the boundary stage.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, being dead as applied to the corpse does imply having died, since the worm of which the corpse is a part passed through death.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'corpses are never alive' to 'corpses never died' equivocates between objects being alive and objects being the subject of a life-terminating event.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotelian-influenced hylomorphists like Patrick Toner argue that substantial change can make the corpse a successor substance that inherits relational historical properties, including having-been-the-terminus-of-dying.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If historical relational properties are inherited across substantial change, then a corpse can satisfy 'having died' derivatively, dissolving the alleged forced denial.
      ?

      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

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    According to such theorists, organisms and their corpses are two different objec...Aristotelian-influenced hylomorphists like Patrick Toner argue that substantial ...Corpses are never alive, according to these theorists.Four-dimensionalist ontology permits an organism and its corpse to be temporal s...
    +5 moreShow less
    If corpses were never alive, then they never died, so being dead (as applied to ...If historical relational properties are inherited across substantial change, the...If the corpse-stage is a later temporal part of the same four-dimensional worm a...The inference from 'corpses are never alive' to 'corpses never died' equivocates...Therefore, being dead as applied to the corpse does imply having died, since the...

    Similar

    The problem of what is in the state of being dead cannot be solved by ...86%If corpses were never alive, then they never died, so being dead (as a...85%Whether an organism leaves a corpse or not, and whether its corpse exi...85%If an object that is an organism may continue its existence as a corps...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: death
    Such theorists will say that organisms and their corpses are two different objects... they will need to deny that, as concerns corpses, being dead implies having died, as corpses are never alive
    View source passageHide passage
    As is mentioned below, some theorists deny that an object that is at one time an organism may continue its existence as a corpse. Such theorists will say that organisms and their corpses are two different objects. They may conclude that ‘dead’ is ambiguous—that it means one thing as applied to organisms, and another thing as attributed to the corpses organisms leave. In any case, they will need to deny that, as concerns corpses, being dead implies having died, as corpses are never alive, according to them. If, on the other hand, an object that is an organism may continue its existence as a cor...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that such theorists hold organisms and corpses are different objects, that corpses are never alive according to them, and that they will need to deny that being dead implies having died as concerns corpses—premise 3 makes explicit the reasoning linking never being alive to never having died, which is clearly entailed by the passage's logic.

    Confidence: Clearly stated conditional argument in the text.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit