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
    Therefore the boundary between appearances and things-in-... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→We cannot know anything about things in themselves other than the bare fact that they exist independently of our representations.

    Therefore the boundary between appearances and things-in-themselves cannot be drawn in the way the claim requires, undermining the epistemic limit it asserts.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Any meaningful distinction requires shared criteria intelligible to both sides; we lack access to things-in-themselves to establish such criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We can only know appearances through our cognitive faculties; distinguishing them from what exists independently requires stepping outside cognition itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The very act of drawing a boundary between two domains requires conceptual resources that apply within experience, making the boundary self-undermining.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A distinction can be logically coherent even if we cannot empirically access one side; mathematical truths reference objects we never directly perceive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim confuses epistemological limits with ontological boundaries; we can meaningfully posit unknowable things-in-themselves despite cognitive constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The objection assumes the boundary requires direct comparison, but we can infer it indirectly from structural features of experience itself (like its systematic organization).
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A distinction can be logically coherent even if we cannot empirically access one...Any meaningful distinction requires shared criteria intelligible to both sides; ...The claim confuses epistemological limits with ontological boundaries; we can me...The objection assumes the boundary requires direct comparison, but we can infer ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The very act of drawing a boundary between two domains requires conceptual resou...We can only know appearances through our cognitive faculties; distinguishing the...We cannot know anything about things in themselves other than the bare fact that...

    Details

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