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
    Awareness of the thing-in-itself must be reached through ... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Awareness of the thing-in-itself must be reached through a means other than the relationship of causality.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The relationship of causality requires cause and effect to be logically distinct objects or events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The thing-in-itself cannot coherently be positioned as an effect in a causal relationship without treating it as a distinct object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating the thing-in-itself as a distinct object is misconstrued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argues that causality as a category of understanding applies only to phenomena, making the thing-in-itself causally inaccessible by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causality cannot reach the thing-in-itself, Schopenhauer's own route via bodily will still presupposes a causal inference from sensation to metaphysical reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A method that covertly relies on causal reasoning cannot coherently claim to transcend the causal relation it rejects as insufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Helmholtz and the sign theorists held that perception involves inferential, causal chains that yield only signs of external reality, not direct acquaintance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causal chains can reliably ground knowledge of external states, then dismissing causality as a route to deeper reality requires a stronger argument than mere categorical distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's claim that positioning the thing-in-itself as an effect is 'misconstrued' asserts rather than demonstrates a principled limit of causal inquiry.
      ?

      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

    PerceptionCausation

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility2 linkedTruth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A method that covertly relies on causal reasoning cannot coherently claim to tra...Helmholtz and the sign theorists held that perception involves inferential, caus...If causal chains can reliably ground knowledge of external states, then dismissi...If causality cannot reach the thing-in-itself, Schopenhauer's own route via bodi...
    +5 moreShow less
    Kant argues that causality as a category of understanding applies only to phenom...The relationship of causality requires cause and effect to be logically distinct...The supporting argument's claim that positioning the thing-in-itself as an effec...

    Similar

    The thing-in-itself cannot coherently be positioned as an effect in a ...84%Invoking causality to refer to the thing-in-itself treats it as a dist...83%Applying the relationship of causality requires conceiving of cause A ...81%Berkeley re-interprets causality as a purported relation between ideas...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: schopenhauer
    View source passageHide passage
    These internal problems with Kant’s argument suggest to Schopenhauer that Kant’s reference to the thing-in-itself as a mind-independent object (or as an object of any kind) is misconstrued. Schopenhauer maintains instead that if we are to refer to the thing-in-itself, then we must come to an awareness of it, not by invoking the relationship of causality – a relationship where the cause and the effect are logically understood to be distinct objects or events (since self-causation is a contradicti
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The thing-in-itself cannot coherently be positioned as an effect in a causal rel...
    Treating the thing-in-itself as a distinct object is misconstrued.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit