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 Uncodifiability of rationality is a red herring in McDowell's argument for mental anomalism

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McDowell's constitutive ideal of rationality is not merely a heuristic but a transcendental condition on mental content individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without the uncodifiability thesis, no principled barrier exists to treating rational norms as reducible to computational regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kim's argument lacks the Kantian resources McDowell deploys to explain why rational norms resist physical law-formulation in principle, not merely in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Holism about the mental, as developed by Quine and Davidson, entails that belief attribution is governed by open-ended rational constraints that cannot be finitely systematized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The uncodifiability of rationality is precisely what distinguishes holistic mental holism from mere complexity, making it irreducible to physical description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Collapsing McDowell's argument into Kim's obscures this holism-based explanatory gap and misidentifies the source of mental anomalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The salvageable core of McDowell's argument reduces to Kim's argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kim's argument does not rely on rationality being uncodifiable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The asymmetry between mental and physical explanation is separable from the concept of rationality as uncodifiable
      ?

      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.