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 Hutcheson's supporting argument commits a category error: the mental origin of a perception does not entail that the object perceived is itself mental.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hutcheson may argue that beauty's dependence on perceiver response suggests it lacks independent reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If beauty only exists in the relation between mind and object, treating it as mental may be ontologically correct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The category error charge assumes beauty is object-like, but it might be a relational or dispositional property instead.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The origin of a representation in the mind does not determine the ontological status of what is represented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We mentally perceive physical objects, yet this does not make those objects mental entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Confusing the causal origin of an idea with the nature of its referent is a well-documented logical fallacy.
      ?

      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.