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 Mutual dependence of activity without a shared mode simply redescribes the problem of interaction rather than solving it, as Leibniz argued against Descartes.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Modern physics shows interaction occurs through fields and forces—genuinely shared causal structures—undermining the Cartesian-Leibnizian framing entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mutual dependence explains interaction functionally: if A's state reliably determines B's, the *mechanism* may be irrelevant to the explanatory work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Leibniz's solution introduces God as a hidden shared mode; this is less parsimonious than accepting irreducible empirical dependence relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Two substances with no shared medium cannot causally interact; mutual dependence merely describes correlation, leaving causation unexplained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's pre-established harmony solves interaction by positing God-coordinated substances; rejecting this requires explaining coordination without shared mode.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If activity is mutual but independent, we must explain *why* one substance's state corresponds to another's—redescription without explanation.
      ?

      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.