If at least one category of relation is non-contingently connecting by its formal nature, then positing relational tropes of that category constitutes a genuine theoretical response, not a mere posit.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Category of relation(as used in metaphysics): A type of connection or relationship between things, like 'is next to,' 'causes,' or 'is similar to.' Philosophers group different kinds of relationships into categories based on their features.
Formal nature(as used in metaphysics): The essential structure or defining characteristics of something, independent of what it's made of or how it's used. Think of it as what makes something *what it is* at its core.
Genuine theoretical response(as used in philosophy of science and epistemology): A real, substantive explanation for something—not just a placeholder or an arbitrary guess, but something that actually helps us understand the world.
Mere posit(as used in metaphysics and epistemology): An assumption made just to fill a gap in an explanation without actually explaining anything meaningful; an arbitrary assumption that doesn't really help us understand.
Non-contingently(as used in modal metaphysics): In a way that is necessary and cannot be otherwise; not dependent on circumstances or chance. If something connects non-contingently, it *must* connect that way, no matter what.
positing(Fichtean model of self-consciousness): The act by which the I establishes or asserts being — both its own being and, through limitation, the being of the non-I
relational tropes(Alternative specification within trope-based event ontology): A construal of events as tropes that are relational in nature

2 topics