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 We cannot even conceive of non-mental objects

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even an imaginary object is only a conception of something that would affect our senses
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any conception we can form is constrained by what could affect our senses
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Every attempt to conceive a mind-independent object necessarily involves a conceiver representing it, embedding mentality into the very act of conception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Berkeley's esse est percipi demonstrates that 'unconceived object' is self-refuting: conceiving the unconceived collapses the distinction between object and mental content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The phenomenological tradition (Husserl's intentionality) confirms that all objects of thought are constituted through consciousness, leaving no conceptual remainder outside mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's transcendental idealism establishes that space, time, and causality—the very structures enabling object-conception—are imposed by mind, not discovered in mind-independent reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any purported conception of a non-mental object still deploys categories (substance, persistence, unity) that are, on Kantian grounds, contributions of the understanding rather than features of things-in-themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since we cannot strip away these mental contributions and still retain a coherent conception, the residual 'non-mental object' is literally inconceivable, not merely unknown.
      ?

      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.