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
    Tropes and immanent universals are metaphysically untenable — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Tropes and immanent universals are metaphysically untenable

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any entity wholly present at location L1 and wholly present at distinct location L2 generates a contradiction: the entity both has and lacks the intrinsic properties of each region.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Immanent universals require exact co-location with distinct particulars, but Leibniz's Law entails that co-located entities sharing all properties are numerically identical, collapsing universals into particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Trope bundle theory requires co-located tropes to constitute a single object, yet distinct tropes occupy distinct locations by their own intrinsic nature, making coherent bundling formally impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Immanent universals must be wholly present at multiple distinct locations simultaneously, violating the Lewisian principle that particulars are never wholly present in multiple places.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tropes individuated solely by spatiotemporal location collapse into bare particulars, eliminating the qualitative character they were posited to explain, as Armstrong argues against the trope theorist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The mereo-locational principle No Interpenetration holds that distinct entities cannot occupy the same spatiotemporal location
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tropes and immanent universals, if spatiotemporally located, would violate No Interpenetration
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mereo-locational principles like No Interpenetration are at least as well justified as the posits they are used to reject
      ?

      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 & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Any entity wholly present at location L1 and wholly present at distinct location...Immanent universals must be wholly present at multiple distinct locations simult...Immanent universals require exact co-location with distinct particulars, but Lei...Mereo-locational principles like No Interpenetration are at least as well justif...
    +4 moreShow less
    The mereo-locational principle No Interpenetration holds that distinct entities ...Trope bundle theory requires co-located tropes to constitute a single object, ye...Tropes and immanent universals, if spatiotemporally located, would violate No In...Tropes individuated solely by spatiotemporal location collapse into bare particu...

    Similar

    No actual universality is possible without individuation.80%Tropes and immanent universals, if spatiotemporally located, would vio...79%Universality cannot itself be a universal.79%Propositions cannot be composed of immanent-realist properties (proper...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: location-mereology
    View source passageHide passage
    The first response says: so much the worse for tropes and immanent universals. This response uses a mereo-locational principle, No Interpenetration, as a premise in an argument against certain metaphysical views, namely those that posit tropes or immanent universals. Is there some reason why mereo-locational principles should not be used in this way? The principles of pure mereology are often so used. For example, Lewis (1999: 108–110) rejects states of affairs and structural universals on the g
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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