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
    This assumption can be challenged. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Bradley's regress argument fails because it wrongly assumes relations must account for both difference between qualities and their unity.

    This assumption can be challenged.

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Bradley's argument relies on the assumption that relations need to account for d...Bradley's regress argument fails because it wrongly assumes relations must accou...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    That assumption is therefore false.84%By the same logic used in the challenge argument, these challenges wou...80%This assumption is not acknowledged or justified in Lange's argument80%The argument partly depends on the doubtful assumption that Epicharmus...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: bradley-regress
    View source passageHide passage
    The main work in this regress is being done by premises (1), (2), and (3). It is thus quite unfortunate that Bradley does not spend time substantiating them. This is especially needed when it comes to his peculiar interpretation of internality of a relation as being grounded in proper parts of qualities. For why not claim that the quality in its entirety can act as part of the ground (the other part being the other quality or qualities) for different internal relations? This would certainly be m

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective