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 Things in themselves—objects considered qua objects of discursive cognition in general—are not in space.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson argues in 'The Bounds of Sense' that 'things in themselves' is an incoherent concept produced by illegitimately applying the category of existence beyond possible experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'things in themselves' cannot coherently be described as existing, claims about their spatial or non-spatial character are equally meaningless rather than informatively negative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that things-in-themselves are 'not in space' thus smuggles in a substantive characterization of what Kant's own critical constraints forbid us from characterizing at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz held that space is a relational structure grounded in the intrinsic properties of substances, making spatiality a derivative feature of mind-independent monadic reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space is reducible to non-spatial relational properties of things in themselves, then things in themselves are not non-spatial but rather constitute the deeper ground from which spatial structure is abstracted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P2 of the supporting argument therefore fails: the distinction between our specific intuition and discursive cognition in general does not establish that things-in-themselves lack all spatial or proto-spatial structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When objects are considered qua objects of discursive intellect in general rather than our specific discursive intellect, our specific intuitional epistemic conditions (space and time) can no longer be assumed to apply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Space is an epistemic condition specific to our kind of discursive cognition, not a condition of discursive cognition in general.
      ?

      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.