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 empirical universe is an objective but less-than-real appearance (māyā), not fully real nor fully unreal.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A coherent ontology requires that existence is binary: any entity either exists or does not, with no stable intermediate grade of being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Advaita 'third category' (anirvacanīya) borrows predicates from both real and unreal without grounding what makes such borrowing coherent, rendering it formally empty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bertrand Russell and the analytic tradition hold that apparent ontological puzzles dissolve under proper logical analysis rather than requiring new ontological categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Intersubjective perceptual agreement, as Kant argued, is fully explicable by shared cognitive structures without positing a mind-independent but less-than-real appearance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If māyā is grounded in and produced by Brahman, it stands in a real causal relation to Brahman, which undermines the claim that it is less than fully real.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.External objects are perceived with intersubjective agreement, so they are not individual subjective illusions and are independent of mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The universe cannot be both fully real and fully unreal simultaneously without contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A third ontological category is needed: an appearance that is objective yet less-than-real.
      ?

      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.