Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A being whose existence involves any internal conceptual dependency cannot be said to need 'nothing other than itself' in an absolute sense.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Internal conceptual dependencies are mind-dependent; they don't constrain what a being needs ontologically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A being could be absolutely self-sufficient in existence while humans merely require concepts to understand it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates epistemological limits (how we know things) with metaphysical facts (what things actually need).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Self-identity requires distinguishing oneself from non-self, which logically depends on the concept of 'other.'
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Any being with properties must conceptually depend on the frameworks that make those properties intelligible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Absolute self-sufficiency requires independence from all external reference points, including conceptual ones.
?
How convincing is this?
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.