Bradley's regress against relations presupposes that relations must themselves be related to their relata, but this conflates internal and external relations without justification.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Bradley's regress(General problem in ontology; Lowe's formal-relation strategy is intended to block it): An infinite regress that arises when a relation between constituents of a state of affairs is itself treated as a further constituent requiring yet another relation to bind it, and so on without end
Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Relata(in philosophy of relations): The individual things that a relation connects—for example, in 'Alice loves Bob,' Alice and Bob are the relata (the things being related).
Relations: A relation is a way of describing how two or more things are connected or related to each other. For example, "is the parent of," "is taller than," or "is friends with" are all relations that show how people or objects link together. In everyday terms, it's simply a pattern or connection that shows how one thing depends on, compares to, or associates with another.

Based on where you are in your exploration