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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.