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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Theorists who deny that an organism may continue its existence as a corpse must deny that, as concerns corpses, being dead implies having died.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.