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
    Van Inwagen is a composite material object. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Organisms (living composite objects) do exist.

    Van Inwagen is a composite material object.

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    Organisms (living composite objects) do exist.Van Inwagen believes that he himself exists.Van Inwagen's mereological nihilism has a stopping point that exempts organisms ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Bucephalus is a composite entity made up of multiple simpler component...85%Organisms (living composite objects) do exist.84%There exist composite things in reality78%Nothing that is composite can serve as the foundational entity (dravya...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: substance
    View source passageHide passage
    Van Inwagen’s main argument is that necessary and sufficient (particularly sufficient) conditions cannot be given for the kind of cohesion of parts that is supposed to bind atoms into complexes. None of the standard candidates—contact, fastening, adhesion, fusion, nor any acceptable disjunction of them—will suffice. They all have counterexamples. So the notion cannot be well defined. The arguments are subtle and interesting. The question might be raised whether van Inwagen gives sufficient consi

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective