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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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