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
    For appearances, divisions of matter into parts are not c... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→For appearances, both the Thesis (divisions of matter are finite) and the Antithesis (divisions of matter are infinite) are false.

    For appearances, divisions of matter into parts are not completable in experience.

    PerceptionSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismPerception

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A sequence that is not completable in experience can be considered neither finit...For appearances, both the Thesis (divisions of matter are finite) and the Antith...The predicates 'finite' and 'infinite' apply only to a completed or completable ...

    Similar

    For appearances, both the Thesis (divisions of matter are finite) and ...77%If matter is taken as a thing-in-itself, then the sequence of division...75%Material objects as conglomerates of parts do not actually exist as pe...75%Wholes are merely collections of minimal parts and do not actually exi...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: continuity
    View source passageHide passage
    Kant identifies the inadmissible condition as the implicit taking of matter as a thing-in-itself, which in turn leads to the mistake of taking the division of matter into parts to subsist independently of the act of dividing. In that case, the Thesis implies that the sequence of divisions is finite; the Antithesis, that it is infinite. These cannot both be true of the completed (or at least completable) sequence of divisions which would result from taking matter or substance as a thing-in-itsel

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective