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 Naiyāyika third clause blocks causal transitivity, suggesting the Naiyāyikas are defining causal salience rather than causality per se.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Many causal theories, including INUS condition accounts (Mackie) and contrastive theories, deliberately block transitivity without thereby reducing to mere salience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blocking transitivity is a principled metaphysical move to capture productive causal relevance, not evidence that the account is epistemically rather than ontologically oriented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Naiyāyika third clause can be read as a metaphysical constraint on causal sufficiency, not a pragmatic filter on explanatory interest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's efficient cause and Scholastic accounts of proximate versus remote causation similarly restrict causal chains without collapsing into mere salience or explanatory pragmatics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The historical prevalence of non-transitive causal ontologies across traditions suggests transitivity is a contested norm, not the criterion distinguishing metaphysical from epistemic causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Most accounts treat causality as a transitive relation: if A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Naiyāyika third clause is used to prevent the cause of a cause (e.g., the potter's parents) from counting as a cause of the effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Blocking transitivity departs from standard definitions of causality.
      ?

      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.