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 relations, not just independent ones, are incapable of relating

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.