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 real distinction proof cannot be fully defended if hu... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The real distinction proof cannot be fully defended if humanity is ignorant about the essence of the soul

    Consciousness & MindSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' real distinction proof requires conceiving mind and body as complete substances with fully grasped natures, not mere functional differences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norris explicitly holds that human minds cannot access the divine archetype of the soul, leaving its essential nature epistemically opaque.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without epistemic access to the soul's essence, the modal conceivability argument for real distinction collapses into mere phenomenal reporting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke argued in the Essay that we have no idea of substance itself, only its sensible qualities, making essence-based metaphysical proofs unavailable to finite minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If inner consciousness yields only that the mind exists, not what it is, then any proof requiring the mind's essential incompatibility with extension lacks its key premise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The real distinction proof depends on abstractive processes that require access to the essence of the soul
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norris claims humans have no access to God's idea of the mind
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The mind's existence is known only by inner consciousness or sentiment, not by its essence
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismConsciousness & Mind

    Related

    Descartes' real distinction proof requires conceiving mind and body as complete ...If inner consciousness yields only that the mind exists, not what it is, then an...Locke argued in the Essay that we have no idea of substance itself, only its sen...Norris claims humans have no access to God's idea of the mind
    +4 moreShow less
    Norris explicitly holds that human minds cannot access the divine archetype of t...The mind's existence is known only by inner consciousness or sentiment, not by i...The real distinction proof depends on abstractive processes that require access ...Without epistemic access to the soul's essence, the modal conceivability argumen...

    Similar

    The real distinction proof depends on abstractive processes that requi...85%Concluding a real distinction requires knowledge of one's nature, not ...81%Humanity is ignorant about the essence of the soul81%To use the essence of the soul as a premise in a proof, one must know ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: john-norris
    View source passageHide passage
    Norris offers an important insight into how the real distinction proof depends on abstractive processes. However, like Malebranche, Norris claims that we have no access to God's idea of the mind. The mind's existence is known only by inner consciousness, or sentiment. This raises the same problems for Norris that Malebranche has defending the proof. (See Nolan and Whipple 2005.) If humanity is ignorant about the essence of the soul, then there can be no proof using the essence of the soul as a
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit