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 original regress arguments in Appearance and Re... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bradley's original regress arguments in Appearance and Reality do not establish the unreality of relations

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's regress is best read as a transcendental argument: any account of relating must explain unity, and no relational account can do so without vicious circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bertrand Russell's own admission in 'The Principles of Mathematics' that relating relations cannot be reduced to further terms confirms Bradley's core demand is legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If even Russell concedes that the unity problem resists relational analysis, Bradley's argument exposes a genuine explanatory gap rather than resting on unsubstantiated assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's context principle and the predicate-argument distinction show that relational terms require a fundamentally different ontological status than objects, vindicating Bradley's intuition that relations cannot simply 'be' among their relata.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the categorial difference between relating and being-related cannot be captured within a flat relational ontology, Bradley's regress reveals an internal incoherence in that ontology rather than importing illicit assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's first regress assumes without justification that relations conceived as 'independent' from their relata cannot relate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's second regress assumes without justification that 'internal' relations cannot unify qualities because they are grounded in proper parts of qualities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is not clear why Bradley understands internal relations as grounded in proper parts of the qualities they relate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    Arguments that rely on unsubstantiated assumptions cannot succeed as reductio ar...Bertrand Russell's own admission in 'The Principles of Mathematics' that relatin...Bradley's first regress assumes without justification that relations conceived a...Bradley's regress is best read as a transcendental argument: any account of rela...
    +6 moreShow less
    Bradley's second regress assumes without justification that 'internal' relations...Frege's context principle and the predicate-argument distinction show that relat...If even Russell concedes that the unity problem resists relational analysis, Bra...If the categorial difference between relating and being-related cannot be captur...It is not clear why Bradley requires relations to fulfill the dual role of unify...It is not clear why Bradley understands internal relations as grounded in proper...

    Similar

    Bradley's regress argument is not an argument against relations themse...91%Bradley's regress argument fails because it wrongly assumes relations ...88%Bradley's regress argument generates an infinite regress only if one a...85%If the regress is generated by an assumption about how relations conne...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bradley-regress
    View source passageHide passage
    One sort of rejectionist reply to Bradleyean arguments can be found in Perovic (2014). Perovic (2014) argues that Bradley’s original regress arguments in AR rest on unsubstantiated assumptions and thus cannot be considered as successful reductio arguments against relations. For example, the first regress takes for granted that as long as unifying relations are conceived as “independent” from their relata, they cannot relate. The second regress assumes that unifying of qualities cannot be achieve
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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