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
    Principle 1's definition of perception is inadequate beca... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Principle 1's definition of perception is inadequate because it excludes divine perception.

    Divine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika thought, Īśvara's perception (yaugapadyajñāna) is eternal and simultaneous, requiring no indriya-artha contact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi distinguishes extraordinary (alaukika) perception from ordinary sense-based cognition, making sensory contact non-essential to perception as such.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any definition that excludes a recognized epistemic category acknowledged by established pramāṇa theory is analytically incomplete by the standards of that tradition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rāmānuja's Viśiṣṭādvaita holds that Brahman's omniscient perception is the paradigm case of knowledge, not a derivative or deficient form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a definition excludes the paradigm case of the phenomenon it purports to define, the definition commits the fallacy of ativyāpti or avyāpti recognized in Indian logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Divine perception is a genuine form of perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Divine perception involves no sensory connection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Principle 1 requires sensory connection as a necessary condition for perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesPerception

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Any definition that excludes a recognized epistemic category acknowledged by est...Divine perception involves no sensory connection.Divine perception is a genuine form of perception.Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi distinguishes extraordinary (alaukika) perception from...
    +5 moreShow less
    If a definition excludes the paradigm case of the phenomenon it purports to defi...In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika thought, Īśvara's perception (yaugapadyajñāna) is eternal and...Principle 1 requires sensory connection as a necessary condition for perception.Rāmānuja's Viśiṣṭādvaita holds that Brahman's omniscient perception is the parad...Therefore Principle 1 cannot accommodate divine perception.

    Similar

    Therefore Principle 1 cannot accommodate divine perception.89%Principle 1's definition of perception is too broad, because it entail...87%Human perception is by its nature infused with concepts and beliefs.83%Divine perception is a genuine form of perception.82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: early-modern-india
    View source passageHide passage
    Gaṅgeśa criticises Principle 1 on three grounds: (a) it entails that every awareness is perceptual since every awareness is produced by the instrumentality of the ‘inner’ sense faculty or manas; (b) it fails to include divine perception, which involves no sensory connection; and (c) there is no one type of sensory connection, nor anything obviously in common to the ad hoc list of six types. Gaṅgeśa therefore offers a new definition:
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit