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 traditional conviction that thinking and being are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed is philosophically untenable.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Causal closure of the physical domain, supported by neuroscience, entails that mental states are fully explicable without ontological parity with being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's bundle theory demonstrates that 'thinking' reduces to discrete perceptual events with no intrinsic structural correspondence to mind-independent causal regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The predictive success of physics operating under a realist ontology provides inductive grounds for being's independence from any conceiving mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's thing-in-itself establishes that noumenal being necessarily outruns all possible conceptual determination, preserving an irreconcilable asymmetry between thought and being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting arguments commit a non sequitur: showing relational interdependence between thinking and being does not dissolve their categorical opposition, only complicates it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The belief that being exists totally independently of and without any relation to thinking leads to contradictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The conviction that thinking is external to being — with being as a self-standing provider of material on which a contentless thinking imposes conceptual form — leads to contradictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The assumption that being could exist without thinking and thinking without being leads to contradictions.
      ?

      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.