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 InternalB relations cannot serve as the relating relation between A and B, because they generate an infinite process of division rather than genuine relatedness.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a relation R is 'nothing to the qualities' (i.e., an internalB relation), then A and B will not merely fail to be related but will undergo an infinite process of division, as demonstrated in Regress 2.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's Regress 2 shows that internalB relations dissolve into an infinite division rather than unifying their relata.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An internalB relation is fully determined by the intrinsic natures of its relata, meaning it adds no additional unifying structure beyond those natures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the relation adds no unifying structure, then what appears as relatedness is merely the co-presence of qualities, which itself demands further grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This demand for further grounding initiates Regress 2: each attempted ground dissolves into constituent parts requiring yet another unifier, producing infinite division.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's early analysis of relations distinguished external relations as genuinely unifying from internal relations that reduce to predications of the relata themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relatedness reduces to predications of the relata, then the relation is not a real constituent binding A and B but a shadow cast by their natures, incapable of genuine unification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without genuine unification, the 'connection' between A and B fragments into ever-finer intrinsic characterizations, reproducing the infinite regress Bradley diagnosed.
      ?

      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.