Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Desire can arise in disembodied selves (e.g., liberated souls or God in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika theology), so the living body cannot be the necessary specifier.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Theological claims about disembodied beings operate outside empirical verification; we lack phenomenological access to assess whether disembodied desire is coherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, God's 'desire' may be metaphorical—understood as divine intention rather than psychological desire as experienced by embodied beings.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
All observed desire in conscious beings arises with embodied nervous systems; disembodied desire remains stipulated rather than demonstrated or explained.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika theology attributes desires to God (īśvara) despite God being incorporeal, demonstrating desire logically independent of embodiment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If liberated souls (mukta) retain consciousness post-embodiment as these traditions claim, they could possess preferences without physical substrates.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Desire as preference or inclination toward states is conceptually distinct from bodily sensation, so embodiment cannot be its necessary condition.
?
How convincing is this?
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