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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Ideas cannot be modes of the mind

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.What we know in the most important instances of knowledge is universal, necessary, and infinite (as in certain mathematical knowledge)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nothing that is a mode of a particular, contingent, and finite mind can be universal, necessary, or infinite
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If ideas were modes of the mind, we would not have universal, necessary, and infinite knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ideas, as Malebranche argues, are the immediate objects of perception distinct from mental acts, possessing objective reality independent of any particular mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A mode cannot exist independently of the substance it modifies, yet ideas of eternal truths (e.g., geometric relations) persist regardless of whether any finite mind contemplates them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, ideas must be located in an infinite intellect (God), not as modifications of finite minds, since their necessity cannot be grounded in contingent mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes distinguishes formal reality (the act of thinking) from objective reality (the represented content), and a mode of mind possesses only formal, not intrinsic objective, reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal adequacy requires that the objective reality of an idea have a cause containing at least as much formal reality, which a finite mode cannot supply for ideas of infinity or geometric necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus the representational content of ideas outruns what any finite mental modification could intrinsically possess, necessitating an extra-mental or supra-mental ground for ideational content.
      ?

      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