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 self-explanatory ground differs categorically from an external cause, so the First may have an internal rational ground without violating its primacy.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Any ground—internal or external—makes the grounded dependent on the ground, creating a dependence relation that challenges primacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Self-explanation risks circularity: claiming 'X explains X' without independent justification may be question-begging rather than genuinely explanatory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between internal grounds and causes may be semantic; both involve one thing making another necessary, violating absolute independence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Self-explanation (A explains itself via its own nature) is logically distinct from causation (X causes Y through external action).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A necessary being's essence can ground its existence without requiring an external cause, preserving its status as First.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Internal rational grounds operate via logical necessity, not temporal dependency, so they don't compromise primacy.
?
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.