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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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