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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes uses clear and distinct perception to recognize the cogito and God's existence before formally establishing the rule's validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the rule is operative in establishing its own foundations, the justification is epistemically self-certifying in a way that cannot escape circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Arnauld's original objection demonstrates that validating the rule requires trusting the very faculty the rule is meant to certify.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'using' and 'explicitly endorsing' a cognitive rule does not dissolve the regress problem if reliability is assumed throughout.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any argument whose premises are accepted only because they seem clear and distinct tacitly invokes the rule's authority before that authority is established.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The truths serving as premises in the arguments for the Clarity and Distinctness Rule are knowable independently of that rule
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Throughout Arcs 1 and 2, the premises employed count as perfectly known prior to the knowledge of the Clarity and Distinctness Rule they help establish
      ?

      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.