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 Self-evident propositions are not incapable of proof; their being self-evident does not rule out the possibility of justification or argument for them.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A self-evident proposition is one that we can be justified in believing without an argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The absence of a need for argument does not entail the impossibility of argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ross explicitly states that 'the fact that something can be inferred does not prove that it cannot be seen intuitively' (1927, 121).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's analytic-synthetic distinction shows that analytically true propositions can be both self-evident and formally demonstrable via conceptual analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's logicist program demonstrated that arithmetic truths, treated as self-evident by many, admit of rigorous proof without losing their foundational epistemic status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition's epistemic accessibility without inference is a feature of how it is known, not a constraint on what formal relations it may stand in.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coherentist justification, as developed by BonJour, holds that even foundational beliefs gain epistemic support through their integration into a mutually reinforcing belief system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ross's prima facie duties are self-evident in the sense of Aristotle's nous: grasped immediately by trained moral perception, yet still illuminated by dialectical argument in the Nicomachean Ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The self-evidence of a proposition marks the terminus of a particular epistemic route, not the exhaustion of all possible justificatory routes to that proposition.
      ?

      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.