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
    Ultimate simple objects are not ontologically viable as p... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Ultimate simple objects are not ontologically viable as posited in the Tractatus.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's simples must be both logically independent and combinable, but any object with combinatorial form already has relational properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An object with relational properties cannot be metaphysically simple, as Frege's context principle shows meaning arises only within propositional contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore posited simples either lack the combinatorial form needed for picturing, or possess it and thereby forfeit their simplicity—a fatal dilemma.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's own regress argument in 'On the Relations of Universals and Particulars' shows that positing bare particulars generates infinite explanatory regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tractarian simples, as bearers of form without further grounding, replicate exactly the bare particular structure Russell identified as regress-generating.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that posited entities earn their place by doing indispensable explanatory work simples cannot perform without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Whatever can be referred to must have an internal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whatever can be referred to must form part of a larger relational structure.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    An object with relational properties cannot be metaphysically simple, as Frege's...Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that posited entities earn ...Russell's own regress argument in 'On the Relations of Universals and Particular...Therefore posited simples either lack the combinatorial form needed for picturin...
    +4 moreShow less
    Tractarian simples, as bearers of form without further grounding, replicate exac...Whatever can be referred to must form part of a larger relational structure.Whatever can be referred to must have an internal structure.Wittgenstein's simples must be both logically independent and combinable, but an...

    Similar

    Curry does not seriously attempt to eliminate ontological commitment t...79%Hybrid ontological objects (intersections of mental, abstract, and phy...78%Many arguments in ontology rely on category-neutral uses of the term '...78%Finite objects are mathematically unproblematic77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: findlay
    View source passageHide passage
    Wittgenstein: A Critique reviews the Tractatus, the Blue and Brown books, Remarks on the Foundations of the Mathematics, and the Investigations. The format is to take key aphorisms from Wittgenstein, expound them at considerable length, and then launch objections, which pile up as in a Thomistic Summa, but absent the replies. For example, against the Tractatus, Findlay objects (1) “Ultimate simple objects” are not ontologically viable, whatever can be referred to must have an internal structure,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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