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 If matter were a thing-in-itself, it would need to have absolutely intrinsic properties.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's thing-in-itself is defined by its unknowability to us, not by possession of absolutely intrinsic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A thing-in-itself could coherently lack intrinsic properties if 'intrinsicness' is itself a category applicable only within possible experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, being a thing-in-itself does not entail having absolutely intrinsic properties, undermining P1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ontic structural realists (Ladyman, French) argue that physical objects have no intrinsic properties at all, only relational ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If structural realism is coherent, matter could be a fundamental constituent of reality without possessing absolutely intrinsic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conditional 'if matter were a thing-in-itself, it would need absolutely intrinsic properties' thus rests on a contestable metaphysical assumption.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Things-in-themselves possess absolutely intrinsic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Matter is not a thing-in-itself but mere appearance.
      ?

      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.