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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Universals and tropes do not count as examples of interpenetration

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On immanent realist accounts (Armstrong, Loux), universals are wholly present at each instance location, not merely constituents abstracted from location.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two distinct universals—redness and roundness—can be wholly present at the very same exact spatial region simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If two entities are each wholly present at one and the same exact location, they satisfy any reasonable criterion for interpenetration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Trope bundle theorists (Campbell, Williams) identify particulars with clusters of tropes, where each trope is a located abstract particular occupying a precise region.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Multiple distinct tropes—a particular redness-trope and a particular mass-trope—are standardly assigned the exact same spatial location within one bundle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The premise that interpenetration requires overlapping exact locations is satisfied by co-located tropes, undermining the claim's exclusion of tropes from interpenetration cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Universals are parts or constituents of entities that have exact locations, and in that sense universals are 'in their instances'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Universals do not themselves have exact locations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without exact locations, universals cannot have overlapping exact locations
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42