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 Jones's identity thesis, if it requires Hamilton's quantified predicates, inherits the circularity Bradley identified: quantifying predicates already presupposes a relational structure that mere identity cannot ground.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Identity and quantification operate at different logical levels; presupposing quantificational infrastructure doesn't entail circularity about identity itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's regress targets infinite chains of relating relations, not the foundational role identity plays in any coherent metaphysical scheme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hamilton's quantified predicates may be epistemically prior without being metaphysically prior—the charge of circularity conflates these distinct orders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bradley's regress shows bare identity cannot explain how distinct relata relate without presupposing the relational structure it attempts to ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quantified predicates like 'for all x, F(x)' logically require a prior domain and membership relation that identity alone cannot establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Jones's identity thesis relies on Hamilton's apparatus, it inherits the same circularity: assuming relational structure to explain relational structure.
      ?

      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.