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 logical laws were merely conventional, different logic... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Candrakīrti's own use of logical inference to establish conventionalism is self-undermining: logical laws like non-contradiction appear to be metaphysically necessary, not merely conventional.

    If logical laws were merely conventional, different logical systems could be equally valid, yet we treat violations as genuine errors, not alternatives.

    ?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.

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    Candrakīrti's own use of logical inference to establish conventionalism is self-...

    Related

    Candrakīrti's own use of logical inference to establish conventionalism is self-...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.

    Open for perspectives

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

    Share the first perspective