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
    All relations, not just independent ones, are incapable o... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    All relations, not just independent ones, are incapable of relating

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any relation R that 'relates' a and b must itself stand in a further relating-relation to a and b, generating an infinite regress regardless of R's ontological status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since the regress arises from the logical role of relating—not from independence—even dependent or internal relations face the same structural problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Blanshard and Joachim's internal relations still require a unifying nexus between relata, reproducing Bradley's regress at the level of relational facts themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wilfrid Sellars's analysis shows that any tie or nexus posited to bind terms inherits the same explanatory burden as the original relation, making relation-type irrelevant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If dependent relations were capable of relating by virtue of their dependence on relata, this dependence would itself be a further relation requiring grounding, iterating the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The regress in Regress 1 assumed relations are incapable of relating, targeting only independent relations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's subsequent arguments extend this result to relations as such
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bradley's later regress assumes the results of his previous arguments and attacks all relations
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Any relation R that 'relates' a and b must itself stand in a further relating-re...Blanshard and Joachim's internal relations still require a unifying nexus betwee...Bradley's later regress assumes the results of his previous arguments and attack...Bradley's subsequent arguments extend this result to relations as such
    +4 moreShow less
    If dependent relations were capable of relating by virtue of their dependence on...Since the regress arises from the logical role of relating—not from independence...The regress in Regress 1 assumed relations are incapable of relating, targeting ...Wilfrid Sellars's analysis shows that any tie or nexus posited to bind terms inh...

    Similar

    Bradley's Regress 1 demonstrates that independent relations cannot rel...89%External relations cannot truly relate and are not genuine relations88%Independent (non-internal) relations cannot serve as the relating rela...86%Qualities cannot exist without relations.85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bradley-regress
    View source passageHide passage
    The regress presented here is somewhat similar to the one expressed in Regress 1 above. In both cases relations are assumed to be incapable of relating. In Regress 1, however, Bradley explicitly targeted only the “independent” relations. Here, Bradley is assuming the results of his previous arguments, and attacking all relations, i.e., relations as such.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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