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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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