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 All phenomena are empty of any intrinsic reality

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga and Dharmakīrti's svalakṣaṇa doctrine holds that causally efficacious particulars possess unique intrinsic characters that ground perceptual knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phenomena wholly lacked intrinsic reality, causal efficacy would be indeterminate, rendering the Buddhist epistemological project of distinguishing valid from invalid cognition incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A coherent theory of two truths requires conventional truth to retain enough ontological grip to support causal explanation, which presupposes some non-relational properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The neither-one-nor-many argument assumes that identity must be either strictly singular or strictly plural, but trope theory allows for numerically distinct yet qualitatively unified property-instances that escape this dilemma.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a phenomenon's intrinsic character is constituted by its own particular trope rather than a universal or a plurality, Bhāviveka's and Candrakīrti's exhaustive disjunction is not logically closed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika realists such as Uddyotakara explicitly argued that universal properties (sāmānya) inhere in substances as real, mind-independent features, providing a historically grounded alternative ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All phenomena lack any singular identity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All phenomena lack any plural identity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The second and third criteria are mutually entailing and together prove the neither-one-nor-many argument
      ?

      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.