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 Problematic idealism — the view that the existence of objects outside us in space is doubtful and indemonstrable — is false.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.My awareness of the determinate temporal order of my past experiences requires a reference point outside of me in space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If such a reference point is required by something I actually possess (determinate temporal awareness), then the existence of external objects is not merely doubtful but demonstrable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.I do possess awareness of the determinate temporal order of my past experiences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The immediate objects of outer sense are spatial appearances whose existence is given with the act of sensory intuition itself, not inferred from it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's Refutation of Idealism shows that inner experience (consciousness of my own existence as determined in time) is only possible through outer experience of persistent spatial objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, any skeptical doubt about outer objects that presupposes the coherence of inner experience is self-undermining, since inner experience is constitutively dependent on outer experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.G.E. Moore's proof from ordinary language demonstrates that the existence of hands — paradigm external objects — is known with greater certainty than any philosophical premise used to doubt them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A skeptical argument whose conclusion is less certain than the common-sense propositions it seeks to overturn fails as a demonstration, since the denial of the conclusion is epistemically stronger than any premise in the argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein's hinge epistemology reinforces this: doubt about external objects is not a coherent epistemic position but a performative contradiction, as doubting itself presupposes a shared external framework of practices and referents.
      ?

      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.