The trick behind Alexander’s supposedly non-platonic correlationism is that the hierarchy of “sub-claims and sub-sub-claims” are difficult to enumerate for spec

The trick behind Alexander’s supposedly non-platonic correlationism is that the hierarchy of “sub-claims and sub-sub-claims” are difficult to enumerate for specific cases. Because of this it’s not immediately apparent that the bundle of correlated subclaims are filtered for relevance. All the Platonism is hiding under that rug of relevance. That’s to say, when we talk about Tyson being stronger than my grandmother, we ignore correlated subclaims such as “Tyson consumes more protein than my grandmother” or “Tyson wears a jockstrap more often than my grandmother”—these are correlated with being stronger (probably), but they are incidental to the concept of strength. When we ask ourselves what subclaims are relevant, we’re right back to pointing at essence.