Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If nihilism is incoherent with the very act of rational deliberation, it cannot be a live epistemic possibility for any deliberating agent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Pragmatic coherence (acting successfully) differs from logical coherence; one can deliberate effectively without endorsing nihilism's truth-claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Nihilism may be rationally indefensible yet still psychologically alive—agents can hold contradictory commitments without coherence requirements blocking them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument equivocates between 'live option' (psychologically available) and 'defensible option' (rationally justified), conflating distinct epistemic categories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rational deliberation requires assigning differential credence to outcomes, which presupposes some propositions are more justified than others.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Nihilism denies that any proposition has greater justification than its negation, making deliberation's presuppositions self-refuting.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An agent cannot coherently act on a view while simultaneously believing that view undermines the rational basis for action itself.
?
How convincing is this?
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.