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 complexe significabile must be something mind-independent, although it is not an entity

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham's razor demands that positing mind-independent non-entities as truth-bearers multiplies ontological categories without necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Propositional truth can be fully explained by mental acts and their relations to concrete particulars, as Ockham's nominalism demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A 'something' that is neither a being nor an entity violates the exhaustiveness of the classical convertibility of 'being' and 'something' (ens et aliquid convertuntur).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Buridan's account grounds propositional truth in concrete token-sentences and their correspondence to how things stand, requiring no abstract significata.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the complexe significabile is mind-independent yet not an entity, it cannot stand in the causal or epistemic relations required for genuine cognitive access to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A purported object that escapes both ontology and mentality is epistemically inert, making it unable to explain why propositions are true or false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Gregory claims there are senses of 'something' (aliquid), 'thing' (res), and 'being' (ens) that can apply to the complexe significabile
      ?

      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.