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
    The characteristics of a pot (color, shape, hardness, odo... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A pot cannot be said to be many pots.

    The characteristics of a pot (color, shape, hardness, odor) are individually not pots.

    Personal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Personal Identity

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A pot cannot be said to be many pots.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If none of the individual characteristics constitutes a pot, the pot cannot be i...

    Similar

    A pot has many characteristics, such as color, shape, hardness, and od...92%Other characteristics of a pot, such as color and odor, are immaterial...90%If none of the individual characteristics constitutes a pot, the pot c...88%A pot cannot be said to be a single whole composed of many characteris...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: madhyamaka
    View source passageHide passage
    An example of Āryadeva’s demonstrating an inconsistency in a particular position is his critique of the view that there is a permanent self. He observes that since a permanent self could not undergo change, it could not be harmed or destroyed, and therefore it is inconsistent for those who believe in such a self to promote ethical guidelines against killing or harming others. While Āryadeva endeavors in some chapters to show the inconsistencies in a number of particular doctrines of the Sāṃkhya

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective