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 regress argument is not an argument against rel... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bradley's regress argument is not an argument against relations themselves, but against the assumption that relations need to be related to what they relate

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & 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.Russell's own response to Bradley distinguishes external relations (which hold independently) from the demand that relations require further relating relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relations were self-subsistent universals needing no further relating tie, the regress never initiates—Bradley's target is the relational nexus assumption, not relations per se.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's concept-object distinction similarly shows that predicative expressions have unsaturated structure that bonds without requiring a third entity to mediate the bond.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's Tractatus 2.03 treats objects as fitting together in states of affairs 'like links in a chain'—the structure is internal to the relation, requiring no external cement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the linking role is internal to the relation's nature rather than an added relational fact, then Bradley's regress presupposes a Bradleyan picture of relations that well-formed relational ontologies explicitly reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's regress argument generates an infinite regress only if one assumes that relations must themselves be related to their relata
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the regress is generated by an assumption about how relations connect to their relata, then the regress undermines that assumption rather than the existence of relations
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Bradley's regress argument generates an infinite regress only if one assumes tha...Frege's concept-object distinction similarly shows that predicative expressions ...If relations were self-subsistent universals needing no further relating tie, th...If the linking role is internal to the relation's nature rather than an added re...
    +3 moreShow less
    If the regress is generated by an assumption about how relations connect to thei...Russell's own response to Bradley distinguishes external relations (which hold i...Wittgenstein's Tractatus 2.03 treats objects as fitting together in states of af...

    Similar

    Bradley's original regress arguments in Appearance and Reality do not ...91%If the regress is generated by an assumption about how relations conne...90%Bradley's regress argument fails because it wrongly assumes relations ...90%Bradley's regress argument generates an infinite regress only if one a...89%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bradley-regress
    View source passageHide passage
    More of the same can also be found in Alexander (1920 [1966], vol. 1, 249, 256) and Grossmann (1992: 55–56). Though they are less harsh than Broad and Blanshard in their assessment of Bradley’s regress arguments, they are unambiguous in their diagnosis of the problem as one involving the wrong conception of relations. According to Grossmann, for instance, the correct conclusion to draw from Bradley’s regress argument is that “it is really an argument not against relations, but against the assump
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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