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 Thinking about things in themselves using categories does not establish that there are things in themselves falling under the categories

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If categories are genuinely constitutive of objecthood as such, then things in themselves—as objects of any possible cognition—must satisfy them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's own argument that categories are necessary conditions for any object whatsoever undermines the restriction of their validity to appearances only.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This tension, exploited by Hegel in the Science of Logic, suggests categorical structure cannot be quarantined to phenomenal objects without self-defeat.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's 'Bounds of Sense' argues that meaningful thought requires applicability conditions that are not merely subjective but track structural features of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If thinking about things in themselves using categories is genuinely coherent thought, it must carry minimal ontological commitments about what is being thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We can think of any objects whatsoever using the categories
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using categories to think about things in themselves is unavoidable since categories are the most basic concepts of objects in general
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying categories in thought to things in themselves does not yield knowledge that things in themselves actually fall under those categories
      ?

      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.