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 normative asymmetry McDowell identifies between mental and physical discourse is constitutively tied to the space of reasons, not merely to supervenience failures Kim exploits.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The space of reasons itself may supervene on physical facts without being reducible to them; McDowell conflates normativity with non-supervenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental states are constituted by reasons, this seems to make mental causation mysterious rather than clarifying how minds fit into the physical world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing mental discourse from physical based on normativity rather than supervenience merely relocates the explanatory burden without solving the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mental content is individuated by rational relations (justification, inference), while physical properties are individuated causally and structurally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reasons constitute a normative space where mental states stand in rational relations; physical states lack this rational articulation entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kim's supervenience-based argument cannot explain why mental vocabulary is irreplaceable in rational explanation, only why it might be causally redundant.
      ?

      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.