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
    Space is not a separate, incorporeal entity independent o... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Space is not a separate, incorporeal entity independent of matter for Descartes

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?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.Descartes equates bodily and spatial extension to reject any view treating space as independent of matter (Pr II 9)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conceiving corporeal substance as distinct from its extension leads to the confused idea of an incorporeal substance (Pr II 9)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' own thought experiments require conceiving extended space persisting through matter's removal (Pr II 18), suggesting spatial intuition outruns matter-identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space and matter were strictly identical, 'vacuum' would be strictly inconceivable, yet Descartes expends considerable argument refuting it rather than dismissing it as grammatically ill-formed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Newton's absolute space, developed partly in direct response to Cartesian physics, derives its philosophical motivation from genuine ambiguities in Descartes' own extension-matter conflation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes distinguishes 'internal place' (matter itself) from 'external place' (surface of surrounding body), implying spatial relations are not fully reducible to particular material substances (Pr II 15).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This internal/external place distinction reintroduces a relational structure that functions independently of any specific material body, undermining strict matter-space identity.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    Conceiving corporeal substance as distinct from its extension leads to the confu...Descartes distinguishes 'internal place' (matter itself) from 'external place' (...Descartes equates bodily and spatial extension to reject any view treating space...Descartes' own thought experiments require conceiving extended space persisting ...
    +3 moreShow less
    If space and matter were strictly identical, 'vacuum' would be strictly inconcei...Newton's absolute space, developed partly in direct response to Cartesian physic...This internal/external place distinction reintroduces a relational structure tha...

    Similar

    Any entity that is not unconscious of its own essence is a non-spatial...78%Scientific knowledge requires conceiving of entities as separate and i...77%The mind is distinct from matter and only an immaterial substance is c...76%Living only in relation to the One precludes independent subjectivity.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: descartes-physics
    View source passageHide passage
    Related to the alleged circularity of the definitions of motion and body, as well as the problem of resting bodies, is the difficulty in reconciling Descartes’ definition of “substance” with his claim that individual bodies are substances. If, as Descartes believes, substances are not dependent on other things in order to exist (Pr I 51), then any part of extension (which is a body, via Pr II 10, as explained above) would not qualify as a substance since it depend on its contiguous neighbors to
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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