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 Intuitive cognition, for Ockham and the nominalist tradition, requires the actual presence or existence of the object as a causal condition.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
We intuitively cognize past events through memory and distant objects through light-rays; the object's current existence is not strictly necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
This requirement seems to conflate the causal origin of a mental state with the phenomenological character of intuitive experience itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hallucinations can be causally produced by brain states without any object's presence, suggesting causation alone doesn't guarantee intuitive cognition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Causal interaction requires direct contact between cause and effect, which demands the object's actual existence at the moment of cognition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without requiring actual presence, we cannot distinguish genuine intuitive knowledge from mere imagination or false belief about absent objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Nominalism rejects abstract entities; only concrete, existing particulars can causally produce mental states that constitute intuitive cognition.
?
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.