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 thinking about things in themselves using categories i... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Thinking about things in themselves using categories does not establish that there are things in themselves falling under the categories

    If thinking about things in themselves using categories is genuinely coherent thought, it must carry minimal ontological commitments about what is being thought.

    ?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.Categories are formal structures for organizing thought, not descriptions of reality, so they impose no claims about actual existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Coherent thought requires only internal logical consistency, not correspondence with ontological facts about objects themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Minimal commitments preserve generality: fewer assumptions about what exists allows thought to apply across diverse domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Using any category entails commitment to that category applying to something; application itself is an ontological claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Thought about 'things in themselves' necessarily presupposes they possess some determinate nature that makes them intelligible at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Coherence without ontological commitment is impossible: meaningful categories must carve reality at some joints, not purely arbitrary joints.
      ?

      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 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Categories are formal structures for organizing thought, not descriptions of rea...Coherence without ontological commitment is impossible: meaningful categories mu...Coherent thought requires only internal logical consistency, not correspondence ...Minimal commitments preserve generality: fewer assumptions about what exists all...
    +3 moreShow less
    Thinking about things in themselves using categories does not establish that the...Thought about 'things in themselves' necessarily presupposes they possess some d...Using any category entails commitment to that category applying to something; ap...

    Details

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