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 'things in themselves' cannot coherently be described as existing, claims about their spatial or non-spatial character are equally meaningless rather than informatively negative.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A statement can be meaningfully negative without presupposing full coherent description: 'not spatial' genuinely excludes something even if existence remains unclear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates semantic meaningfulness with metaphysical coherence; denying spatial properties conveys substantive information regardless of ontological puzzles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Things-in-themselves might be coherently *described* as non-spatial even if their existence mode differs from phenomena, making the claim's dichotomy false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Predicates like 'spatial' and 'non-spatial' presuppose a framework of intelligibility; applying them to the unknowable violates their logical preconditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a thing cannot be coherently described as existing, we lack the conceptual ground to assign it any determinate properties whatsoever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Saying 'things-in-themselves are non-spatial' smuggles in content where only silence is justified by the premises.
      ?

      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.