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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Compositional structure need not entail explanatory dependency if composition is fundamental rather than derivative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A composite system could be self-subsistent if its parts and their arrangement are necessarily co-occurring and eternal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates mereological dependence with existential dependence, which may be conceptually distinct categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Composition necessarily involves parts that are ontologically prior to and distinct from the whole they constitute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any entity depending on prior constituents cannot explain its own existence without appealing to something beyond itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only non-composite beings can avoid infinite regress by serving as ultimate explanatory grounds for dependent things.
      ?

      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.