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 Representing empirical objects in space is not illusory.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If spatial representation is a mind-imposed form rather than a feature of things-in-themselves, it satisfies the classical definition of illusion as systematic misrepresentation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant concedes that space does not belong to objects as they are in themselves, meaning spatial experience fails to disclose the true nature of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A representation that is universally shared and practically indispensable can still constitute collective illusion, as Berkeley's idealism demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sellars argues that Kant's distinction between empirical reality and transcendental ideality is unstable, since any cognition framed as 'merely subjective' in its ultimate ground is epistemically illusory by degree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the non-illusory status of spatial representation depends solely on intersubjective necessity rather than mind-independent correspondence, this conflates coherence with truth in a question-begging way.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If an epistemic condition E does not accurately represent its objects, then representing objects with E is an illusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant aims to avoid the conclusion that spatial representation of empirical objects is illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Space is a genuine epistemic condition of our cognition, so empirical objects considered as objects of our cognition must fall under space.
      ?

      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.