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 connection that is the emergent cause of desire is specified (delimited) by the living body
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Desire can arise in disembodied selves (e.g., liberated souls or God in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika theology), so the living body cannot be the necessary specifier.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the living body is the delimiting condition, post-mortem or liberation-state cognition becomes inexplicable within the same causal framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Hume's bundle theory and Śāntarakṣita's Buddhist no-self view both deny a persistent self that could sustain a connection requiring bodily delimitation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If there is no enduring self distinct from mental states, the posited self-body connection collapses into a regress, making bodily specification explanatorily idle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The emergent cause of desire is a connection
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Every connection is specified by something
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If mere connection with a self were sufficient to originate desire without a further specifier, the scope of desire-causation would overextend (yield unacceptable ramifications)
?
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.