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 many pots.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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