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
    D1A1 is unsound — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    D1A1 is unsound

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.D1A1 relies on Oneness (or Self-Predication) as a premise
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Oneness (or Self-Predication) is false
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments

    Related

    D1A1 relies on Oneness (or Self-Predication) as a premiseOneness (or Self-Predication) is false

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Similar

    BF (Barcan Formula) is unprovable in KQML72%CBF (Converse Barcan Formula) is unprovable in KQML72%□N is unprovable in KQML72%The Absolute is, by definition, unconditioned.71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    But the most interesting exception is D1A1. In D1A1, Parmenides argues for D1A1C: that if the one is, then the one is not many. The reasoning is simple. From Oneness or Self-Predication, it follows that the one is one. Consequently, if the one is, then the one is one. But the property of being one and the property of being many are contraries, and, by Purity-F, no form can have contrary properties. Given that the one is a form, it follows that if the one is, then the one is not many. The non-obv
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit