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
    There must be immediate judgments — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There must be immediate judgments

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mediated judgments obviously exist
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The existence of mediated judgments entails the existence of immediate judgments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'mediated judgments exist' to 'immediate judgments must exist' assumes a linear foundational structure of justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Coherentist epistemology, as advanced by Neurath and BonJour, shows that justificatory chains can be mutually supporting without any terminus in unmediated judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A regress that is circular or holistic rather than linear requires no immediate stopping point to avoid vicious infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.All judgment involves conceptual mediation, as Sellars argued: there is no 'Given' that stands outside the inferential web of reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no judgment escapes conceptual mediation, the regress Bolzano fears does not terminate in immediate judgments but is instead holistically grounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A regress that is circular or holistic rather than linear requires no immediate ...All judgment involves conceptual mediation, as Sellars argued: there is no 'Give...Coherentist epistemology, as advanced by Neurath and BonJour, shows that justifi...If no judgment escapes conceptual mediation, the regress Bolzano fears does not ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mediated judgments obviously existThe existence of mediated judgments entails the existence of immediate judgmentsThe inference from 'mediated judgments exist' to 'immediate judgments must exist...

    Similar

    Certainty in the context of immediate judgments must be taken in a sub...85%The existence of mediated judgments entails the existence of immediate...83%No judgment can be called purely just in the present moment80%Mediated judgments obviously exist78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bolzano
    View source passageHide passage
    From the obvious existence of mediated judgments, however, it follows that there must also be immediate judgments (WL III, 125, 138–139). Immediate judgments cannot be false and must therefore be certain (WL III, 212, 229, 263). Certainty has thereby not to be taken in its objective sense in which a proposition \(s\) is certain relative to a set \(\sigma\) of propositions iff the logical probability of \(s\) relative to \(\sigma\) is 1, i.e., iff \(s\) is a logical consequence of \(\sigma\) (WL
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit