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
    Abstractive cognition is also somewhat intuitive — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Abstractive cognition is also somewhat intuitive

    PerceptionTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In abstractive cognition, the species of the object is known immediately
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whatever is known immediately is known intuitively
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Intuitive cognition, for Ockham and the nominalist tradition, requires the actual presence or existence of the object as a causal condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abstractive cognition by definition proceeds independently of whether its object exists or is present, operating through retained species.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A mode of cognition that is indifferent to the existence of its object cannot satisfy the causal-existential requirement definitive of intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Immediacy of cognitive access to a species is distinct from immediacy of access to the extra-mental object itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intuitive cognition requires immediate epistemic contact with the res as it exists in the world, not merely with its mental representation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating immediacy of species-apprehension with intuitive cognition of the object commits a category error between cognitive vehicle and cognitive target.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    PerceptionTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A mode of cognition that is indifferent to the existence of its object cannot sa...Abstractive cognition by definition proceeds independently of whether its object...Conflating immediacy of species-apprehension with intuitive cognition of the obj...Immediacy of cognitive access to a species is distinct from immediacy of access ...
    +4 moreShow less
    In abstractive cognition, the species of the object is known immediatelyIntuitive cognition requires immediate epistemic contact with the res as it exis...Intuitive cognition, for Ockham and the nominalist tradition, requires the actua...Whatever is known immediately is known intuitively

    Similar

    The intellect must have intuitive cognition of extramental sensible ob...84%Objects of cognition are necessarily conceptual constructions based on...83%Internal aspects that provide a basis for cognition arise simultaneous...80%All cognition of empirical objects requires empirical intuitions.79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: gregory-rimini
    View source passageHide passage
    Inspired by some of Ockham’s successors, Gregory argues against the Venerable Inceptor’s claim that via intuitive cognition one could determine whether a thing does exist or not (Tachau 1988, 363). In agreement with Auriol against most contemporaries, however, Gregory also holds that one can have an intuitive cognition of an object that does not exist, as for example when we see a “broken” pencil in a glass of water, when there is only an unbroken pencil in reality. But Auriol is wrong in claimi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit