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
    Bradley's regress shows that nothing ever gets connected ... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bradley's regress shows that nothing ever gets connected to anything else, making instantiation incoherent.

    Causation
    ?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.Any relation posited to 'ground' instantiation must itself either float ungrounded or generate a new regress, since grounding relations are relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Vicious regresses defeat explanation when each step requires the same unexplained element the step was invoked to explain, as Russell acknowledged in 'The Principles of Mathematics'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Instantiation is precisely such a case: each connecting relation I_n requires a further I_(n+1) of the same type, so the explanatory target is never reached.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Trope bundle theorists and nominalists who dissolve Bradley's regress by eliminating relations still face compresence or co-instantiation relations that regenerate the same regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Eliminating the universal F does not eliminate the need for some tie between a and the trope, and that tie is itself a further relational entity requiring grounding, as Maurin argues in her work on trope theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore no ontological category—universal, trope, or bare particular—provides a regress-stopping ground for instantiation, confirming that instantiation itself is incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If individual a has property F, then a must be linked to F by a dyadic relation of instantiation I1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a is linked to F by I1, then a further triadic relation of instantiation I2 is required to connect I1, F, and a.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.At each stage of this process, a further connecting relation is required.
      ?

      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 & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language2 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Any relation posited to 'ground' instantiation must itself either float unground...At each stage of this process, a further connecting relation is required.Eliminating the universal F does not eliminate the need for some tie between a a...If a is linked to F by I1, then a further triadic relation of instantiation I2 i...
    +6 moreShow less
    If individual a has property F, then a must be linked to F by a dyadic relation ...Instantiation is precisely such a case: each connecting relation I_n requires a ...Therefore no ontological category—universal, trope, or bare particular—provides ...

    Similar

    This regress proceeds without end.80%Therefore, if there is an infinite regress of causes, nothing in Natur...78%i2 is itself a universal, so a, F, i1, and i2 must be linked by yet an...77%Bradley's regress argument generates an infinite regress only if one a...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: properties
    View source passageHide passage
    One important motivation, possibly the main one, behind attempts at analysis such as the ones we have just seen is the worry to avoid the so-called Bradley’s regress regarding exemplification (Baxter 2001: 449; Mumford 2007: 185), which goes as follows. Suppose that the individual \(a\) has the property \(F\). For \(a\) to instantiate \(F\) it must be linked to \(F\) by a (dyadic) relation of instantiation, \(I_1\). But this requires a further (triadic) relation of instantiation, \(I_2\), that c
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    This regress proceeds without end.
    Trope bundle theorists and nominalists who dissolve Bradley's regress by elimina...
    Vicious regresses defeat explanation when each step requires the same unexplaine...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit