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
    A pot cannot be said to be many pots. — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A pot cannot be said to be many pots.

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A unified object possesses a single principle of individuation that cannot be distributed across numerically distinct entities (Leibniz, Monadology §8).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Numerical identity requires strict self-sameness: if a pot were many pots, it would violate the indiscernibility of identicals by being both one and many simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra establishes that conventional objects are designated as wholes precisely to distinguish them from mere aggregates of parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian substance ontology holds that a primary substance is an irreducible 'this,' a determinate individual resisting partition into co-equal substances of the same kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a pot were many pots, each constituent pot would itself be many pots, generating a vicious infinite regress that destroys the explanatory grounding of any particular object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The characteristics of a pot (color, shape, hardness, odor) are individually not pots.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If none of the individual characteristics constitutes a pot, the pot cannot be identified with a plurality of pots.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    A unified object possesses a single principle of individuation that cannot be di...Aristotelian substance ontology holds that a primary substance is an irreducible...Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra establishes that conventional objects are designa...If a pot were many pots, each constituent pot would itself be many pots, generat...
    +3 moreShow less
    If none of the individual characteristics constitutes a pot, the pot cannot be i...Numerical identity requires strict self-sameness: if a pot were many pots, it wo...The characteristics of a pot (color, shape, hardness, odor) are individually not...

    Similar

    If none of the individual characteristics constitutes a pot, the pot c...83%A pot cannot be said to be a single entity.82%A pot cannot be said to be a single whole composed of many characteris...81%The characteristics of a pot (color, shape, hardness, odor) are indivi...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: madhyamaka
    View source passageHide passage
    An example of Āryadeva’s demonstrating an inconsistency in a particular position is his critique of the view that there is a permanent self. He observes that since a permanent self could not undergo change, it could not be harmed or destroyed, and therefore it is inconsistent for those who believe in such a self to promote ethical guidelines against killing or harming others. While Āryadeva endeavors in some chapters to show the inconsistencies in a number of particular doctrines of the Sāṃkhya
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit