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
    Unshakable conviction in the face of serious, well-though... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Unshakable conviction in the face of serious, well-thought-out challenges is the criterion for truth

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mere stubbornness can produce convictions that are not doubted
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relevant criterion is not simply that a proposition is not doubted, nor that it resists momentary doubt
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition counts as true only if its content is so clearly perceived that the will's affirmation cannot be shaken even by the systematic and sustained doubts of the Meditations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce's pragmatist tradition demonstrates that 'unshakable conviction' is a psychological state, not an epistemic one—indubitability tracks cognitive limits, not truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical science shows propositions once held with Cartesian-grade certainty (e.g., Euclidean space as necessary) were later overturned by superior theoretical frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the psychological irresistibility of a belief under current methods of doubt cannot constitute a criterion for truth, only for current epistemic inaccessibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' establishes that our most foundational convictions function as hinges—they are not doubted, but this is a structural feature of language-games, not evidence of truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If unshakeability derives from a proposition's role in constituting the very framework within which doubt operates, then the criterion conflates logical grammar with metaphysical correspondence.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A proposition counts as true only if its content is so clearly perceived that th...Historical science shows propositions once held with Cartesian-grade certainty (...If unshakeability derives from a proposition's role in constituting the very fra...Mere stubbornness can produce convictions that are not doubted
    +4 moreShow less
    Peirce's pragmatist tradition demonstrates that 'unshakable conviction' is a psy...The relevant criterion is not simply that a proposition is not doubted, nor that...Therefore, the psychological irresistibility of a belief under current methods o...Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' establishes that our most foundational convictions...

    Similar

    We cannot have criteria of truth without first knowing what truth is.78%Without a viable notion of truthlikeness, retaining truth as the goal ...77%Utility, long-term durability, and assertibility may serve as criteria...77%Physicalism is false or faces a serious challenge76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: descartes
    View source passageHide passage
    As mentioned in 3.1, Descartes held that any act of judgment, such as the affirmation “I think, therefore I am,” involves both the intellect and will. The intellect perceives or represents the content of the judgment; the will affirms or denies that content. In the face of genuine clarity and distinctness, “a great light in the intellect” is followed by “a great inclination of the will” (7:59). The inclination of the will is so strong that it amounts to compulsion; we cannot help but so affirm.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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