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 perfect nature defined by the negation of a necessary condition of the dependent nature cannot coherently be grounded in that dependent nature.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Negation of a property doesn't require positive causal grounding in the same way positive properties do.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A dependent being can coherently possess privations (lacks) without those lacks requiring external grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates definitional independence with ontological impossibility of grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If X depends on Y for existence, X cannot be the ultimate source of Y's negation without circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding requires the ground to be ontologically prior to what it grounds; dependence reverses this priority.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A nature defined by *negating* a dependent thing's condition claims independence from that very dependence relation.
?
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.