Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Without a Kantian-style deduction showing why thought-structures must mirror being, the inference from logic to ontology is unwarranted.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Logic's usefulness in prediction and control doesn't require proving it mirrors being itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A Kantian deduction just relocates the problem: why must transcendental conditions match ontology?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many successful inferences from logic to ontology predate Kant; the requirement seems historically imposed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logic's validity seems to depend on structural facts about reality, not merely human cognition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without principled justification for why logic applies to being, we risk ungrounded metaphysical leaps.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kant showed that transcendental arguments can establish necessary connections between mind and world.
?
How convincing is this?
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.