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 Even granting the mode-substance hierarchy, Descartes defines extension itself through parts capable of relative displacement, smuggling motion back into the definition of extension (Pr II 25).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Capacity for displacement describes geometric possibility (non-actual potential), which differs fundamentally from actual motion as a mode.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extension's divisibility into parts is a static structural feature; possibility of rearrangement doesn't require motion to be present or presupposed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes distinguishes extension's essence (three-dimensional divisibility) from motion's essence (change of place), avoiding actual circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Descartes defines extension at Pr II 25 via divisibility and parts capable of spatial rearrangement, not static dimensionality alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defining parts as 'capable of relative displacement' logically presupposes the concept of motion or potential motion in the definition itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If motion is allegedly a mode of extension, not constitutive of it, then smuggling motion into extension's definition creates circular reasoning.
      ?

      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.