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 Both Isenberg's view and the objection to it are considerably less interesting to those who reject the practical vs. theoretical reasoning distinction.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Unified reasoning theories (e.g., Kant's architectonic, Broome's formal rationality) still distinguish reasoning types by subject matter, not just by ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Isenberg's claim concerns the subject matter of critical reasoning about art, which remains a live issue independent of the practical/theoretical distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, collapsing the practical/theoretical distinction does not dissolve the interest of Isenberg's view but relocates the debate to questions of domain-specific rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Theorists like Foot and Anscombe maintain that practical reason has distinctive normative structure irreducible to means/ends calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If practical reason retains distinctive features even without the theoretical/practical split, Isenberg's view remains substantively contested on its own terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Those who reject the practical vs. theoretical reasoning distinction hold that all reasoning is means/ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On the means/ends view, whether a bit of reasoning is good or bad cannot be determined without first determining what the reasoner's end is.
      ?

      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.