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
    Relations must be conceived as involving a pair of correl... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Relations must be conceived as involving a pair of correlatives, even when only a single accident is present in reality

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Relations cannot be understood to exist by themselves or apart from their correlatives
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even relational situations involving only a single accident must be conceived as if they involved a pair, one belonging to each of the related things
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham argues that real relations reduce without remainder to absolute things (res absolutae), making relational pairs ontologically idle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a single accident fully accounts for the relational fact, positing a conceptually necessary correlative violates the razor against multiplying entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conceptual necessity of a correlative reflects grammatical habits of mind, not constraints on how reality must be structured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Averroes and his Latin followers held that some relations, like equality in a homogeneous magnitude, are grounded in a single intrinsic foundation requiring no distinct correlative accident.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the relational structure is entirely determined by the intrinsic nature of one term, conceiving a paired correlative adds no explanatory or ontological content.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    Averroes and his Latin followers held that some relations, like equality in a ho...Even relational situations involving only a single accident must be conceived as...If a single accident fully accounts for the relational fact, positing a conceptu...If the relational structure is entirely determined by the intrinsic nature of on...
    +3 moreShow less
    Ockham argues that real relations reduce without remainder to absolute things (r...Relations cannot be understood to exist by themselves or apart from their correl...The conceptual necessity of a correlative reflects grammatical habits of mind, n...

    Similar

    Even relational situations involving only a single accident must be co...85%Relations are accidents of single subjects, not joint properties of pa...80%On the paradigmatic analysis, what makes 'aRb' true is a pair of monad...79%Reductive realists identify the accidents F and G with ordinary catego...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: relations-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    It is at this point that the medieval notion of a relation of reason (relatio rationis) becomes relevant. Medieval philosophers often say that, even if there are relational situations involving only a single accident, nonetheless these situations must be conceived as if they involved a pair, one belonging to each of the related things (cf., e.g., Aquinas, De potentia q. 1, a. 1, ad 10). Like Boethius, the medievals accept the view that relations cannot be understood to exist by themselves or apa
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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