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
    Nowhere is an external object grasped as a unity or whole... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A unified whole cannot be the object of cognition

    Nowhere is an external object grasped as a unity or whole apart from its parts

    Perception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Perception

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A unified whole cannot be the object of cognition

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Perception
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    No external object — whether conceived as a unified whole, as loose co...83%Appearances are specific forms under which the underlying undifferenti...81%Determinacy of objects is paradigmatically a function of represented c...79%An external sense-object cannot be the intentional object of cognition...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: twotruths-india
    View source passageHide passage
    Of the three alternatives: (1) points to the unity of a thing conceived as a whole; and (2) and (3) point to the multiplicity looking at the things as loose atoms, i.e., composite atoms. Not one of the three possibilities is, on Yogācāra’s account, admissible as the object of cognition however. The first is inadmissible because nowhere an external object is grasped as a unity, whole, one apart from its parts ([ĀlamPV] Tshad ma ce 86b). The second is inadmissible because when we see things we fin

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective