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
    Russell's own response to Bradley distinguishes external ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Bradley's regress argument is not an argument against relations themselves, but against the assumption that relations need to be related to what they relate

    Russell's own response to Bradley distinguishes external relations (which hold independently) from the demand that relations require further relating relations.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.External relations avoid infinite regress: if relations require further relations to relate them, we face Bradley's regress problem indefinitely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Experience shows some relations hold directly (e.g., spatial distance) without needing a third relation to connect the first relation to its relata.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Russell's distinction preserves relational facts as fundamental, avoiding reduction of all relations to intrinsic monadic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Merely asserting relations are 'external' doesn't explain how they connect relata; the claim risks being an unanalyzed primitive rescuing intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relations genuinely hold between distinct things, some principle must account for their holding; denying this need seems to dodge rather than solve Bradley.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Russell conflates avoiding infinite regress with avoiding the legitimacy of the regress worry—the argument may show we need external relations but not that they solve the problem.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Bradley's regress argument is not an argument against relations themselves, but ...Experience shows some relations hold directly (e.g., spatial distance) without n...External relations avoid infinite regress: if relations require further relation...If relations genuinely hold between distinct things, some principle must account...
    +3 moreShow less
    Merely asserting relations are 'external' doesn't explain how they connect relat...Russell conflates avoiding infinite regress with avoiding the legitimacy of the ...Russell's distinction preserves relational facts as fundamental, avoiding reduct...

    Details

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