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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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