Bradley's regress assumes that any connection between terms requires a further connector, but this assumption is self-refuting: if true, the assumed connector itself would require connection, making all unity impossible rather than merely relational unity.

?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
Connector (in this context)(what the regress assumes needs to exist between terms): Something that links or joins two other things together—like glue holding two pieces together, but in the realm of ideas and logic.
F.H. Bradley(the philosopher whose argument is referenced): A 19th-century British philosopher who argued that our everyday understanding of relations and things doesn't actually hold up under logical scrutiny.
Relational unity(what the regress threatens to make impossible): The state of things being connected or bound together through their relationships to each other.

Based on where you are in your exploration