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 Candrakīrti's own use of logical inference to establish conventionalism is self-undermining: logical laws like non-contradiction appear to be metaphysically necessary, not merely conventional.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Conventionalism about logic doesn't require rejecting logical laws operationally; it only denies they reflect reality-in-itself independent of conceptual frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using logical inference pragmatically within conventional discourse doesn't entail endorsing logic as metaphysically necessary—similar to using currency while denying intrinsic value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The appearance of necessity may reflect cognitive structure or linguistic habit rather than metaphysical fact; necessity and conventionality are not exhaustive alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Non-contradiction appears to hold across all possible contexts, suggesting metaphysical necessity rather than conventional stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logical laws were merely conventional, different logical systems could be equally valid, yet we treat violations as genuine errors, not alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Candrakīrti's arguments depend on logical validity to persuade; this parasitic reliance on logic undermines claims that logic is merely conventional.
      ?

      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.