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 Trump-qua-husband and Trump-qua-President are distinct real objects of thought that are nonetheless both properties (metaphysical parts) of Donald Trump.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relative identity theorists (Geach, Griffin) hold that identity is always under a sortal, so 'Trump-qua-husband' and 'Trump-qua-President' are not distinct objects but the same object under different descriptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If qua-objects were genuinely distinct real objects, Trump would have numerically many selves, violating the mereological principle that coincident objects of the same kind are identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's context principle entails that qua-modifications are linguistic or semantic devices, not indicators of distinct metaphysical parts in the object itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Trump-qua-husband' picks out a real metaphysical part, then every predicate true of Trump generates a distinct entity, collapsing into an implausible proliferation of entities rejected by Ockham's razor.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Qua-objects are intentional objects consisting of tropes or accidents that are metaphysical parts of the base object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Trump-qua-husband and Trump-qua-President are distinct qua-modified noun phrases picking out different tropes of Donald Trump.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Being a metaphysical part of a base object entails being a property of that base object.
      ?

      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.