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 truth defined entirely by individual present revision c... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There is no absolute truth as postulated by either dogmatism or skepticism.

    A truth defined entirely by individual present revision cannot distinguish genuine correction from mere change, undermining the normative force of 'surpassing'.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Normative distinctions require stability: calling something 'progress' only makes sense if we can distinguish it from arbitrary fluctuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without external or historical reference points, each moment's revision lacks criteria to judge whether it truly improves or merely differs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If truth reduces to present preference, 'surpassing' becomes rhetorical window-dressing for what is fundamentally just preference replacement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Genuine correction *is* present revision under scrutiny: we distinguish good revisions from bad ones through reasoning, evidence, and coherence tests now.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Appeal to external standards doesn't solve the problem—those standards also face the same justification challenge without circularity or infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling change 'mere' assumes we have access to non-perspectival truth; denying this doesn't undermine normativity, only its traditional metaphysical grounding.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Appeal to external standards doesn't solve the problem—those standards also face...Calling change 'mere' assumes we have access to non-perspectival truth; denying ...Genuine correction *is* present revision under scrutiny: we distinguish good rev...If truth reduces to present preference, 'surpassing' becomes rhetorical window-d...
    +3 moreShow less
    Normative distinctions require stability: calling something 'progress' only make...There is no absolute truth as postulated by either dogmatism or skepticism.Without external or historical reference points, each moment's revision lacks cr...

    Details

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