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 Nature and mind are identical — not merely reciprocally dependent — such that nature is mind made visible and mind is invisible nature.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Nature exhibits causal powers and structural regularities that obtain independently of any mind's conceptual activity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If nature were literally identical to mind, natural laws could not explain why minds are constrained by empirical reality rather than constituting it freely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Schelling's identity thesis conflates epistemic interdependence with ontological identity, a fallacy Kant's transcendental idealism explicitly avoids.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The existence of unfossilized evolutionary history predating any finite or absolute mind entails a nature that was real before mind emerged.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Meillassoux's 'arche-fossil' argument demonstrates that correlationist identity claims cannot coherently account for an ancestral reality prior to givenness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The system of nature is at the same time the system of our mind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Nature and mind, matter and concept are the same in the sense that one is the other and vice versa, not merely correlated while retaining independent reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Finite minds are forced by natural predisposition to distinguish 'outside us' from 'in us', but this distinction is a feature of perspective, not of reality itself.
?
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.