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 relation can be real in one relatum and merely a being of reason in the other relatum.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A relation requires two real terms as its ontological ground, since a relation with only one real relatum lacks the dyadic foundation relations require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If one relatum is merely a being of reason, the purported relation is itself merely a being of reason, not a mixed entity straddling two ontological categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Suárez argues in Disputationes Metaphysicae that ontological status cannot be split across a single relation without collapsing into a contradiction about the relation's own mode of being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The asymmetry argument in P2-P3 conflates epistemological directedness with ontological relational structure, since intentionality is not itself a category of real relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ockham's razor demands that positing a half-real relation to explain cognitive asymmetry is ontologically profligate when the asymmetry can be fully explained by the real properties of the knower alone, without invoking any relation in the known object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A relation is real in both relata only when the two relata belong to a single order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When two relata do not belong to a single order, the ordering is asymmetric.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sense perception and knowledge are ordered to sensible and intelligible things, but sensible and intelligible things in extramental reality are outside the order of sensible and intelligible being.
      ?

      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.