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 relational regress cannot get started if relati... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bradley's relational regress cannot get started if relations' relating role is taken seriously

    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.Relations, as universals, have an internal adicity that constitutes their relating function without requiring further relational mediation (Armstrong, 1997).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A dyadic relation R's holding between a and b is fully captured by the relational fact [R(a,b)], whose unity is primitive and not generated by an additional relating relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the unity of a relational fact is primitive, Bradley's demand for a further relating relation commits a category mistake by treating fact-unity as itself a relatum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wilfrid Sellars' distinction between 'predicational' and 'relational' nexus shows that the copulative function is built into the logical grammar of relations, not superadded by a higher-order relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's regress assumes that any connection between terms requires a further connector, but this assumption is self-refuting: if true, the assumed connector itself would require connection, making all unity impossible rather than merely relational unity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.It is the job of relations to relate their relata
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's skepticism about relations' ability to relate their relata is unwarranted
      ?

      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

    Causation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A dyadic relation R's holding between a and b is fully captured by the relationa...Bradley's regress assumes that any connection between terms requires a further c...Bradley's skepticism about relations' ability to relate their relata is unwarran...If the unity of a relational fact is primitive, Bradley's demand for a further r...
    +3 moreShow less
    It is the job of relations to relate their relataRelations, as universals, have an internal adicity that constitutes their relati...Wilfrid Sellars' distinction between 'predicational' and 'relational' nexus show...

    Similar

    External relations cannot truly relate and are not genuine relations80%Bradley's regress argument fails because it wrongly assumes relations ...80%It is the job of relations to relate their relata78%InternalB relations cannot serve as the relating relation between A an...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bradley-regress
    View source passageHide passage
    In this section, we will take a closer look at different strategies philosophers have employed in engaging with Bradley’s regress arguments and the associated problems discussed above (I will be using the locution “Bradleyean arguments” to refer indifferently to both of these cateogires). The first fork in the road for philosophers has been to either reject the argument by questioning one or more of the assumptions that the argument makes, or to accept and respond to the argument on its own term
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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