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 Modal distinctions (possibility, necessity, actuality) are logical or epistemic categories, not ontological ones, as Kant demonstrated in the Critique of Pure Reason.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Quantum mechanics suggests genuine ontological indeterminacy: particles have intrinsic probability, not epistemic ignorance only.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical necessity (2+2=4) seems to hold regardless of human cognition, suggesting modality transcends our epistemic categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If modality were purely epistemic, different minds with different concepts should disagree on possibilities—but they largely don't.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kant shows modality depends on our cognitive structures, not things-in-themselves, making it epistemic rather than ontological.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessity and possibility describe our conceptual frameworks and what we can coherently think, not mind-independent reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modal claims require reference to possible worlds or counterfactuals that exist only in thought, not in being itself.
      ?

      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.