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 pot cannot be said to be a single whole composed of many characteristics.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some characteristics of a pot, such as shape and hardness, are material and therefore capable of contact and location.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Other characteristics of a pot, such as color and odor, are immaterial and have no location.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Characteristics of contrary natures cannot coherently form a single whole.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If a whole is ontologically dependent on its parts, then the whole has no existence independent of those parts and thus no unified identity of its own.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā demonstrates that any relation between parts and wholes generates infinite regress, as the relation itself requires a further relating relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A 'whole' that is nothing over and above its constituents is a conventional fiction, not a genuine singular entity capable of bearing identity across characteristic diversity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vasubandhu's Abhidharma analysis shows that putative wholes reduce without remainder to momentary dharmas, leaving no substrate in which plural characteristics could inhere as one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For characteristics to constitute a single whole, they must share a common locus, but Dignāga's apoha theory entails that property-clusters are constructed through exclusion rather than discovered as unified natural kinds.
      ?

      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.