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 common-sense concept of 'possible' (whatever does not conflict with human concepts) cannot be Descartes' view of genuine possibility.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes holds that whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Truth is the conformity of thought with its object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mere conceptual non-contradiction does not guarantee a corresponding object in reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Descartes, God's omnipotence is the ultimate ground of possibility, not human conceptual consistency (AT VII 432).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human concepts are finite and can fail to detect contradictions that God's intellect recognizes, making them unreliable guides to genuine possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A standard grounded in human conceptual non-contradiction would make modal facts dependent on human cognition, violating Descartes' doctrine that eternal truths are created by God independently of any mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes explicitly distinguishes what is 'morally impossible' or merely practically inconceivable from what is metaphysically impossible in his correspondence with More (AT V 272).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's later critique of Cartesian modality confirms that genuine possibility requires more than logical consistency within human concepts—it requires grounding in a divine intellect or essence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If common-sense conceivability sufficed for genuine Cartesian possibility, the deceiving-God hypothesis would be genuinely possible, yet Descartes treats its eventual impossibility as a metaphysical, not merely conceptual, result.
      ?

      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.