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 A being can be basic without being absolutely simple

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The concept of 'basicness' is always relative to a descriptive framework, not an intrinsic ontological feature of the entity itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being that is basic only relative to some framework cannot ground the explanatory regress that motivates positing basic beings in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, relative basicness and absolute simplicity serve entirely distinct metaphysical functions, and conflating them equivocates on 'basic'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas and the classical theist tradition hold that any composite being depends on something external to unify its parts, generating a vicious explanatory regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being that is basic yet composite inherits this dependency relation, meaning it cannot be self-subsistent or serve as an ultimate terminus of explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An ultimate ontological ground must terminate all dependency relations, which only absolute simplicity—not mere relative basicness—can achieve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Socrates is basic in some relevant sense yet is composed of many parts such as arms, legs, organs, bones, molecules, and atoms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Phonemes are basic relative to the morphemes of a linguistic theory, yet are complex because they are composed of simpler sound components
      ?

      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.