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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The autonomy of the 'I' can be neither pure nor rigorous and cannot form the basis for a simple and linear differentiation of the human from the animal.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's transcendental unity of apperception establishes the 'I think' as a formal condition of experience that precedes empirical hetero-affection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A condition of possibility for experience need not share the contingent features of what it makes possible, so hetero-affection cannot contaminate transcendental autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If transcendental autonomy is a structural precondition rather than an empirical achievement, Derrida's genetic account of the 'I' misidentifies the relevant level of analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Christine Korsgaard argues that reflective self-constitution—the capacity to endorse or reject one's impulses through normative self-governance—is a uniquely human form of practical identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The presence of hetero-affective inputs does not dissolve autonomous self-constitution, because autonomy consists in how an agent reflects on and endorses those inputs, not in their absence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sharp human-animal distinction can therefore be grounded in the degree and kind of reflective endorsement, not in any impossible purity of self-origination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Auto-position and autotely of the 'I' implies the 'I' to be an other that must welcome within itself some irreducible hetero-affection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the 'I' requires irreducible hetero-affection, then the autonomy of the 'I' is not pure or rigorous.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42