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
    Bradley's argument for idealism is fallacious — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bradley's argument for idealism is fallacious

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's argument requires that relations are either internal to their terms or generate vicious infinite regresses, but neither horn is coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relations are internal, they collapse into the monism Bradley wants to prove rather than serving as premises; if external, they require further relating relations ad infinitum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A valid argument cannot assume its conclusion as a structural feature of its own premises, which Bradley's regress argument demonstrably does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's theory of external relations, developed in 'The Principles of Mathematics' (1903), provides a coherent alternative to Bradley's internalism that Bradley never successfully refuted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's only response to external relations was to insist they must be grounded in the natures of their terms, which begs the question against the externalist position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument that can only rebut its chief rival by presupposing the truth of its own conclusion commits the formal fallacy of petitio principii.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's idealism rests on the converse claim that thought entails being
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore and Russell's convictions about the nature of knowledge rebut this claim
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    A valid argument cannot assume its conclusion as a structural feature of its own...An argument that can only rebut its chief rival by presupposing the truth of its...Bradley's argument requires that relations are either internal to their terms or...Bradley's idealism rests on the converse claim that thought entails being
    +4 moreShow less
    Bradley's only response to external relations was to insist they must be grounde...If relations are internal, they collapse into the monism Bradley wants to prove ...Moore and Russell's convictions about the nature of knowledge rebut this claimRussell's theory of external relations, developed in 'The Principles of Mathemat...

    Similar

    Berkeley's argument for idealism is fallacious100%McTaggart's argument for idealism is not conclusive90%Krug's accusation against Schelling's idealist philosophy of nature is...83%Real-Idealism is an inadequate form of idealism.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    Moore and Russell found two main arguments for idealism to be fallacious. The first concerns Berkeley’s idealistic principle that being consists in being perceived, the second the converse claim, attributed to Bradley, that thought entails being. Their criticism of the first as well as their rebuttal of the second argument stems from certain convictions they share as to the nature of knowledge. The assault on Berkeley is staged by Moore most extensively in “The Refutation of Idealism” (1903). He
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit