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 Abstraction as described presupposes a prior capacity to recognize universality, making the process circular (Geach's 'abstraction myth').

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Abstraction may be a developmental process starting with unreflective discrimination, not requiring explicit prior grasp of universality as a concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing 'recognizing universality' from 'possessing universal concepts' dissolves the circularity—pattern-matching capacity needn't presuppose abstraction theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if some circularity exists, modest abstraction theories claim only to explain concept refinement, not the origin of all discriminatory ability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.To abstract 'redness' from red objects, one must already recognize what counts as the same property across instances—requiring prior universality recognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Empiricist accounts claim abstraction builds universals from particulars, but this assumes we can identify which particulars are relevantly similar without already possessing the universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The vicious circle is genuine: abstraction explains universals only if universals aren't needed to perform the abstraction itself.
      ?

      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.