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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Descartes attributes modes like shape, motion, and divisibility to body but treats these as modifications of extension, suggesting body has a richer ontological profile than bare spatial extension.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes defines body fundamentally by extension (res extensa); calling modifications of extension 'richer' contradicts his own reductive metaphysical framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Shape is reducible to boundary points of extension; motion reduces to change in spatial location; divisibility follows from extension's infinite divisibility logically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing independent ontological status to modes conflicts with Descartes's substance-mode hierarchy where modes depend entirely on their underlying substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Descartes explicitly distinguishes shape, motion, and divisibility as real properties in Principles of Philosophy, not mere appearances or mathematical abstractions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If body were bare extension alone, Descartes could not explain why some extended things are round and others square without invoking additional ontological resources.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes's physics requires motion as causally efficacious; treating it as mere modification preserves motion's reality while maintaining extension as fundamental.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42