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 salvageable part of McDowell's argument for mental anomalism ultimately reduces to Kim's argument

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McDowell's uncodifiability thesis is not merely a stronger claim about rationality but a distinct explanatory ground for anomalism rooted in Aristotelian phronesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kim's argument derives anomalism from the irreducibility of intentional content, while McDowell derives it from the nature of rational responsiveness as such.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These two derivations generate different predictions about which mental states are anomalous, making them non-equivalent and non-reducible to one another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Stripping McDowell's argument of uncodifiability removes precisely the feature that explains why rational norms cannot be captured by any finite physical taxonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.One can hold that rationality is constitutive, normative, and asymmetrical to the physical without accepting McDowell's distinctive picture of rationality as uncodifiable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kim's strategy captures the key asymmetry point without requiring uncodifiability
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The asymmetry point has no essential connection to McDowell's stronger views about rationality
      ?

      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.