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 historical belief in naive set comprehension (pre-Rus... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Necessarily false propositions are arguably not possible objects of belief.

    The historical belief in naive set comprehension (pre-Russell) shows agents can hold contradictory beliefs without suspending propositional assent.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Pre-Russell mathematicians accepted comprehension axiom and derived contradictions without rejecting either belief, showing tolerance for contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitive capacity limits mean agents can hold inconsistent beliefs in separate mental compartments without recognizing their incompatibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical practice reveals agents distinguish between assenting to a belief and assenting to its logical consequences, enabling contradiction tolerance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Pre-Russell mathematicians suspended comprehension assent once Russell's paradox was published, suggesting they did not truly hold the contradictory belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Failure to recognize contradiction differs from tolerating it; agents may hold contradictory beliefs only through ignorance, not genuine acceptance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates psychological fact (agents can be inconsistent) with philosophical claim (contradiction is rationally permissible), which are distinct issues.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Divine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    Cognitive capacity limits mean agents can hold inconsistent beliefs in separate ...Failure to recognize contradiction differs from tolerating it; agents may hold c...Historical practice reveals agents distinguish between assenting to a belief and...Necessarily false propositions are arguably not possible objects of belief.
    +3 moreShow less
    Pre-Russell mathematicians accepted comprehension axiom and derived contradictio...Pre-Russell mathematicians suspended comprehension assent once Russell's paradox...The claim conflates psychological fact (agents can be inconsistent) with philoso...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit