Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that An entity can ground substancehood in others without itself requiring the same grounding criteria, just as a foundation need not itself be founded.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If grounding is a real metaphysical relation, exempting foundations from its criteria seems arbitrary and undermines principled explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates logical priority with metaphysical privilege; explanatory asymmetry doesn't justify different grounding standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Brute facts admitted here are indistinguishable from denying the principle itself, making the special exemption philosophically hollow.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Grounding relations can be asymmetrical: a base need not satisfy conditions it imposes on what it grounds, like axioms in mathematics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Self-grounding leads to infinite regress or circularity; some entities must be foundational to avoid explanatory collapse.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Functional roles differ: a foundation's role is to support others, not to be supported, so grounding criteria need not apply equally.
?
How convincing is this?
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.