Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The causal claim that a single cognitive error grounds all afflictions conflates the epistemic source of suffering with its full causal explanation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
For phenomenologically-experienced suffering, the cognitive error *is* causally primary; no suffering without the interpretive misunderstanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between 'epistemic source' and 'full causal explanation' may be artificial—our frameworks for understanding suffering are themselves causal.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Suffering has multiple independent causal pathways: biological disease, social injustice, and accidents occur regardless of cognitive errors.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Identifying a cognitive error's role in *perceiving* suffering differs logically from explaining suffering's *material origins*.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Single-cause theories of complex phenomena typically fail; afflictions require multifactorial explanations including non-epistemic factors.
?
How convincing is this?
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.