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 Cognition of the terms of a per se nota proposition is not sufficient to ensure the causal mechanism that leads to evidence and certitude

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Per se nota propositions are self-evident precisely because their predicates are contained in the definitions of their subjects, not in linguistic conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognizing a term adequately just is grasping its definition, so full term-cognition analytically includes understanding the definitional content that grounds evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aquinas and Boethius both ground per se notum in real definitional relations, making causal sufficiency follow necessarily from genuine term-comprehension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Crathorn conflates merely hearing a word with genuinely cognizing the term, but the latter requires conceptual grasp sufficient to trigger evidential assent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Aristotelian tradition distinguishes nominal from real definition precisely so that full cognition of terms already embeds the categorical relations needed for self-evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All languages are conventional by nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is possible to cognize terms whose signification remains unknown to the cognizing subject
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Species or cognitions cannot be treated as linguistic elements of thought
      ?

      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.