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 Bradley's own regress argument shows that relations between parts and wholes either generate vicious infinite regresses or collapse into the identity of relata, undermining the coherence of 'corporate mind with finite parts'.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's regress conflates internal relations (constitutive of relata) with external relations; only external relations trigger the regress problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mereological composition can be primitive and non-relational; parts simply constitute a whole without requiring a separate 'relation' to do so.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Identity need not follow from stopping the regress; emergence or novel holistic properties can characterize wholes while preserving part-distinctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's regress shows that any relation R between parts and whole requires a further relation to connect R itself, generating infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relata collapse into identity to stop the regress, parts and whole become indistinguishable, making 'finite parts' incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A genuinely composite mind with distinct finite parts requires both relations between parts AND their distinctness—but Bradley proves this impossible.
      ?

      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.