Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Representing two objects as 'brighter than' one another does not require representing them as part of a larger brightness space.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Representing 'brighter than' as a transitive, asymmetric relation presupposes an ordered structure isomorphic to a brightness continuum.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.'
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
One can represent two lights and simply represent one as brighter than the other without embedding them in a brightness spectrum.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.