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 Material objects as conglomerates of parts do not actually exist as perceived

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Wholes are merely collections of minimal parts and do not actually exist as perceived
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extended objects must necessarily be composed of parts, with atoms as the ultimate building blocks
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Atoms, conceived as partless point-instants, are ultimately insubstantial
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga's apoha theory shows perception of wholes is a conceptual overlay (kalpanā) projected onto bare sensory data, not direct object-contact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dharmakīrti argues only svalakṣaṇa (unique particulars) are causally efficacious; composite 'objects' lack this criterion and are thus conceptual fictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the perceived whole were real, removing one part would require determining which part's removal destroys the whole—yet no such principled boundary exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka analysis shows that neither parts nor wholes can be located as the referent of perception without generating infinite regress or mereological incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Abhidharma tradition's own commitment to mereological reductionism entails that macro-objects are prajñapti-sat (nominally existent), not dravya-sat (substantially real).
      ?

      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.