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
    A knife cannot cut itself; a fingertip cannot touch itself. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The irreflexivity principle implies that the self, if it were the locus of control, could never seek to change its own state.

    A knife cannot cut itself; a fingertip cannot touch itself.

    CausationPerception
    ?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

    PerceptionCausation

    Connections

    3 topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge2 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Perception
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Consciousness & Mind
    2 linked
    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    An entity cannot operate on itself (irreflexivity principle).If the self is the controller, it falls under the irreflexivity principle.The irreflexivity principle implies that the self, if it were the locus of contr...

    Similar

    Adding non-human objects (an anorak, a scarf, a shoe) to the container...68%Picasso likely never touched Guernica directly, only approaching it at...67%Therefore, a body cannot move toward its opposite state (rest or motio...67%Therefore, anything that exists now exists only as a boundary.66%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: buddha
    View source passageHide passage
    Premise (1) is puzzling. It appears to presuppose that the self should have complete control over itself, so that it would effortlessly adjust its state to its desires. That the self should be thought of as the locus of control is certainly plausible. Those Indian self-theorists who claim that the self is a mere passive witness recognize that the burden of proof is on them to show that the self is not an agent. But it seems implausibly demanding to require of the self that it have complete contr

    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