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 The best explanation of spatial separation (A being nearer to D than F) is that D is in contact with a nearer part of space than F

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's relational theory of space holds that spatial relations are grounded in relations among substances, not in relations between substances and void spatial parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An explanation that appeals to contact with spatial parts illicitly reifies space into a substance with intrinsic metric structure, begging the question against relational accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's premise that 'nothing is between A and D' already invokes relational betweenness, making the contact-with-spatial-parts gloss redundant and ontologically inflationary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Spatial contact with 'parts of space' presupposes that space has discrete, individuable parts—a claim the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika tradition explicitly rejects by treating space (ākāśa) as a single, partless substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space has no genuine parts, then 'contact with a nearer part of space' is an explanatory fiction that cannot ground real distinctions in proximity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A is nearer to D than F
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is nothing between A and D
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is nothing between A and F
      ?

      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.