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 Valid a priori cognition is possible because both subject and object are determined by shared ontological principles that are structurally superior to both.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant demonstrated that a priori cognition is grounded in the subject's own constitutive structures, not in mind-independent shared ontological principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing 'structurally superior' shared categories smuggles in a pre-critical metaphysical realism that begs the question against transcendental idealism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If categories are genuinely ontologically prior to both subject and object, we face a vicious regress: we need further cognitive access to those superior principles, requiring yet another grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction undermines the special epistemic status of a priori cognition by dissolving the boundary between logical and empirical revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If all knowledge, including putatively a priori knowledge, is revisable under sufficient empirical pressure, then no shared ontological structure can guarantee the invariant validity Hartmann's account requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge requires at least a partial identity between subject and object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Partial identity between subject and object can be explained by shared ontological principles — categories — that determine both.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These categories are valid for both cognitive (epistemological) and ontological domains, grounding the partial overlap between them.
      ?

      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.