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 Descartes' own substance dualism entails that res cogitans has no spatial properties, making 'seat of the soul' a category error.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes himself posits causal interaction at the pineal gland, implying res cogitans must have some locatable point of contact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Seat of the soul' may denote causal nexus rather than literal spatial location, avoiding category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'having spatial properties' and 'being causally localized' remains philosophically coherent and separable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Descartes defines res cogitans by thought alone, explicitly excluding spatial extension as its defining property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If res cogitans had spatial location, it would possess extension, contradicting its definition as non-extended substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing spatial properties to non-spatial entities violates basic logical coherence about category membership.
      ?

      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.