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 regress leads to the claim that each form in the infi... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Each form in the relevant infinite hierarchy is both one and not one

    The regress leads to the claim that each form in the infinite hierarchy is many

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    By the principle of Oneness, each form is oneBy the principle of Purity-F, if a form is many, it is not oneEach form in the relevant infinite hierarchy is both one and not one

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Each form in the infinite hierarchy of forms of largeness is infinitel...86%
    An infinite regress of forms is generated by the argument that every f...84%
    An infinite regress of forms follows from the assumption that every fo...82%
    Each form in the relevant infinite hierarchy is both one and not one81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    On either interpretation of the identity and structure of the relevant regress, it is as yet unclear why Parmenides finds the regress problematic. It is reasonable to assume that Parmenides’ reason for finding the likeness regress problematic is the same as his reason for finding the largeness regress problematic in the Third Man argument. The same three options canvassed in section 4.3 are available. Some contend that the regress is epistemic and vicious by its very nature, others that the regr

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective