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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.