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
    The truths serving as premises in the arguments for the C... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→There is no vicious circularity in the broader argument for the Clarity and Distinctness Rule

    The truths serving as premises in the arguments for the Clarity and Distinctness Rule are knowable independently of that rule

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    There is no vicious circularity in the broader argument for the Clarity and Dist...Throughout Arcs 1 and 2, the premises employed count as perfectly known prior to...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Therefore only logical truths are subject to the NEC rule83%The arguments of D3 rest on independent premises, including premises o...82%The Principle of Noncontradiction applies to all contingent truths as ...81%An argument begs the question only if its premises cannot be known ind...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: descartes-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    On this interpretation, there is no vicious circularity in the broader argument, because the truths serving as premises in the arguments for the C&D Rule are perfectly knowable independently of that rule. That is, throughout the arguments of Arcs 1 and 2, the premises employed count as perfectly knowledge prior to the knowledge of the C&D Rule they help establish.

    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