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 Cartesian reciprocity of transfer does not satisfy strict relationism in all cases, only for bodies actually undergoing translation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes holds that rest and motion are different bodily states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A strict relationism regarding motion requires that individual bodily states of rest or motion not exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Holding that rest and motion are different bodily states is incompatible with strict relationism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes explicitly defines motion in Principles II.25 as translation relative to immediately contiguous bodies, making rest a limiting case of zero translation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A limiting case of a relational quantity preserves the relational framework rather than introducing an absolute intrinsic property, as Leibniz's analysis of infinitesimals demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, rest in Cartesian physics is a degenerate relational state defined by contiguous neighborhood invariance, not an absolute state violating relationism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mach's relational mechanics permits asymmetric dynamical descriptions while remaining relationist, since relations need not be globally symmetric to be ontologically relational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cartesian reciprocity of transfer applies the relational framework precisely where kinematic content exists—namely, during actual translation—leaving quiescent bodies outside the transfer rule's domain without positing absolute rest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restricting a relational principle to cases where the relevant relata obtain is a standard logical move, not evidence that the principle fails relationism in the domain it governs.
      ?

      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.