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
    Indivisible atoms in combination cannot be the object of ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Indivisible atoms in combination cannot be the object of cognition

    PerceptionSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga's epistemology holds that cognition requires a causal form-imprint (ākāra) from its object, which composites cannot uniformly produce.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A combination of atoms presents no single unified causal surface capable of generating one determinate perceptual representation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the composite, not any indivisible unit, bears the epistemic load, undermining atomism's explanatory role in perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vasubandhu argues in the Viṃśikā that spatial contact between truly partless atoms is geometrically impossible without introducing directionality, hence division.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any object that cannot achieve genuine contact cannot aggregate into a perceptible whole that preserves original indivisibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Atoms conceived as indivisible units in combination cannot be proved to exist as indivisible
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismPerception

    Related

    A combination of atoms presents no single unified causal surface capable of gene...Any object that cannot achieve genuine contact cannot aggregate into a perceptib...Atoms conceived as indivisible units in combination cannot be proved to exist as...Dignāga's epistemology holds that cognition requires a causal form-imprint (ākār...
    +2 moreShow less
    Therefore the composite, not any indivisible unit, bears the epistemic load, und...Vasubandhu argues in the Viṃśikā that spatial contact between truly partless ato...

    Similar

    An external sense-object cannot be the intentional object of cognition...85%An external sense-object cannot be the intentional object of cognition...84%The atoms of an external object are not the intentional object of perc...84%No external object — whether conceived as a unified whole, as loose co...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: twotruths-india
    View source passageHide passage
    Of the three alternatives: (1) points to the unity of a thing conceived as a whole; and (2) and (3) point to the multiplicity looking at the things as loose atoms, i.e., composite atoms. Not one of the three possibilities is, on Yogācāra’s account, admissible as the object of cognition however. The first is inadmissible because nowhere an external object is grasped as a unity, whole, one apart from its parts ([ĀlamPV] Tshad ma ce 86b). The second is inadmissible because when we see things we fin
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit