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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Pakṣaṭā is a necessary auxiliary causal condition for inference to occur

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Inference is fully constituted by the logical relation between vyāpti (pervasion) and pakṣadharmatā (property residing in subject), without requiring any additional motivational state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Introducing pakṣaṭā as a causal condition conflates the epistemic conditions for inference with the psychological conditions for a cognizer's attention, which are categorically distinct in Nyāya metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Gaṅgeśa's own Tattvacintāmaṇi grounds inferential validity in the invariable concomitance relation alone, making motivational states like desire to re-establish conclusions causally redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If pakṣaṭā were a necessary causal condition, then unconscious or automatic inferences—acknowledged in Mīmāṃsā accounts of Vedic cognition—would be impossible, which is an unacceptable consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Prābhākara Mīmāṃsakas held that inferential knowledge arises from structural relations between cognitions, not from the agent's motivational orientation toward the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Given knowledge of the premises, inference normally occurs mechanically
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the conclusion is already known (e.g. perceptually), inference does not occur mechanically
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When the conclusion is already known, the inferrer must have a special desire to re-establish it inferentially in order for inference to proceed
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42