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 Bodies are well-founded phenomena rather than mere incoherent dreams or fictions.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The unity conditions Leibniz attributes to monads are imposed by perceiving minds, not discovered in mind-independent reality (Kant, CPR A100–110).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If phenomenal coherence depends on mental synthesis rather than monadic aggregation, bodies derive their order from cognition, not from real simple substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A phenomenon grounded solely in cognitive activity lacks the mind-independent foundation required to distinguish it from a well-ordered dream.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Berkeley demonstrates that the concept of material substance adds nothing explanatory beyond the structured regularities of perception itself (Principles §18–24).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If positing real simple substances beneath phenomena is explanatorily idle, Occam's razor warrants eliminating them, leaving bodies as coherent but ungrounded perceptual regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A phenomenon whose postulated real foundation is dispensable without explanatory loss cannot be called 'well-founded' in any substantive metaphysical sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bodies result from aggregates of simple substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Simple substances are real beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A phenomenon that has its foundation in real beings is a well-founded phenomenon, not a mere illusion.
      ?

      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.