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
    If being were ultimately identical to thinking, the brute... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Thinking and being are not fundamentally opposed but are ultimately the same.

    If being were ultimately identical to thinking, the brute facticity of existence would be explicable through reason alone, which it demonstrably is not.

    ?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.Contingent facts (why anything exists at all) cannot be derived from logical necessity alone, requiring external explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pure reason generates only necessary truths; empirical particulars like 'this exists here now' exceed rational deduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If thought constituted being, we could think away reality; that we cannot shows being transcends conceptual determination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The claim assumes a sharp fact/reason divide, but mathematical structures (pure thought) generate contingent physical laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Demonstrably not explicable' begs the question—idealists argue apparent facticity dissolves under proper metaphysical analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational systems can generate irreducible complexity; emergence from thought doesn't require thought to explicitly 'calculate' reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    'Demonstrably not explicable' begs the question—idealists argue apparent factici...Contingent facts (why anything exists at all) cannot be derived from logical nec...If thought constituted being, we could think away reality; that we cannot shows ...Pure reason generates only necessary truths; empirical particulars like 'this ex...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rational systems can generate irreducible complexity; emergence from thought doe...The claim assumes a sharp fact/reason divide, but mathematical structures (pure ...Thinking and being are not fundamentally opposed but are ultimately the same.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit