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 Association is inadequate for producing objectively valid representations of objects.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Objectively valid representations must be necessary and universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The empirical unity of consciousness, achieved through association, produces only non-universal, contingent orderings of representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-universal, contingent orderings are merely subjectively valid, not objectively valid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Association operates solely by resemblance, contiguity, and succession—Hume's own principles—which are patterns in subjective experience, not features of objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume himself conceded that causal necessity cannot be derived from association, yielding only constant conjunction, which undermines any claim to objective representation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a rule binding representations to an object distinct from the sequence of impressions, association produces only a 'rhapsody of perceptions,' not cognition of objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Objective validity requires that a representation applies to an object necessarily for any rational subject, not merely for subjects who happen to share associative histories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Associative patterns are biographically contingent: two subjects with different perceptual histories may associate identical sensory inputs differently, yielding divergent 'objects'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A condition that yields divergent objects across subjects cannot be the ground of objective representation, since objectivity demands intersubjective invariance across all possible experiencers.
      ?

      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.