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
    Representing two objects as 'brighter than' one another d... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Representing two objects as 'brighter than' one another does not require representing them as part of a larger brightness space.

    PerceptionPhilosophy of Language
    ?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.One can represent two lights and simply represent one as brighter than the other without embedding them in a brightness spectrum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Embedding objects in a larger space of a relevant character is one possible way to represent a relational property, but not the only way.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Representing 'brighter than' as a transitive, asymmetric relation presupposes an ordered structure isomorphic to a brightness continuum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege and Russell's analysis of relations shows that grasping comparative predicates requires implicit commitment to the ordering field they generate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a background brightness space, 'brighter than' collapses into bare numerical tagging, losing its inferential connections to 'brightest,' 'equally bright,' and 'slightly brighter.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Husserl's account of phenomenal comparison in the Logical Investigations holds that perceiving one quality as exceeding another is constituted by a horizon of graduated intensities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A perceiver who genuinely represents brightness difference, rather than mere qualitative otherness, must situate both relata within a dimension that makes degree-comparisons intelligible.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguagePerception

    Related

    A perceiver who genuinely represents brightness difference, rather than mere qua...Embedding objects in a larger space of a relevant character is one possible way ...Frege and Russell's analysis of relations shows that grasping comparative predic...Husserl's account of phenomenal comparison in the Logical Investigations holds t...
    +3 moreShow less
    One can represent two lights and simply represent one as brighter than the other...Representing 'brighter than' as a transitive, asymmetric relation presupposes an...Without a background brightness space, 'brighter than' collapses into bare numer...

    Similar

    Representing a distance relation between two objects is not analogous ...86%One can represent two lights and simply represent one as brighter than...85%Spatial relations, unlike brightness relations, require the objects to...80%The proposition that Hesperus is bright can be distinguished from the ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-spacetime
    View source passageHide passage
    Daniel Warren clarifies this argument in an especially helpful way (Warren 1998; cf. Allison 2004, 100–104). Certainly, it is not true in general that in any order to represent any two entities, A and B, as related in some way, I must represent them as falling into a larger “space” of some relevant character. Warren gives a useful example: in order to represent A as “brighter than” B, I need not represent A and B as being part of a larger “brightness” space. I could do so: I could represent A an
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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