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 inference from 'appearance cannot be denied' to 'appearance must be connected to reality' conflates epistemic unavoidability with ontological integration.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Any appearance necessarily exists as a mental event, thus is already ontologically integrated into the causal order of consciousness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Epistemic unavoidability itself grounds a weak ontological claim: appearances must exist and have some relational structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between epistemic and ontological may be artificial; our only cognitive access to reality is through appearances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Epistemic unavoidability (we cannot doubt appearances) differs categorically from ontological claims (appearances must connect to reality).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A fact about our cognitive limitations doesn't entail conclusions about external reality's structure or composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Appearances could be systematically disconnected from reality yet remain psychologically inescapable (as in radical skeptical scenarios).
?
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.