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 No external object — whether conceived as a unified whole, as loose composite atoms, or as indivisible atoms in combination — is admissible as the object of cognition

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A unified whole is not grasped as such apart from its parts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Loose composite atoms are not perceived individually one by one
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Indivisible atoms in combination cannot be proved to exist as indivisible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga's apoha theory shows cognition grasps only conceptual exclusions (anyāpoha), never positive external referents directly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If cognition operates solely through exclusionary concepts, no external object—whole, aggregate, or atom—can serve as its direct object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dharmakīrti confirms in Pramāṇavārttika that valid perception is self-luminous (svasaṃvedana), grounding knowledge in awareness itself, not external form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vasubandhu's Viṃśatikā demonstrates that experiential content indistinguishable from object-directed cognition arises in dreams without any external object present.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the phenomenal character of cognition is fully explicable without positing an external object in dream cases, parsimony demands the same explanation extend to waking cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing external objects as cognition's objects introduces an explanatory redundancy that Occam's razor—and Vasubandhu's vijñaptimātratā principle—requires us to eliminate.
      ?

      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.