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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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