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
    Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' distinguishes between hinge... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A circular argument is acceptable when justifying a fundamental form of reasoning

    Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' distinguishes between hinges we act on and claims we are entitled to assert as justified, blocking the inference from necessity to warrant.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hinges (like 'I have hands') are causally necessary for inquiry but epistemically different—we don't justify them within justificatory practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating practical indispensability with epistemic warrant creates a regress: every justified belief would need prior justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein's distinction preserves both that hinges ground knowledge and that they escape the justification game without paradox.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The hinge/warrant distinction is unclear: if hinges are genuinely believed, withholding warrant seems arbitrary rather than principled.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Acting on something without entitlement to assert it suggests a problematic gap between rational action and rational assertion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework may just relabel skeptical problems rather than solve them—declaring hinges outside justification doesn't explain their status.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A circular argument is acceptable when justifying a fundamental form of reasonin...Acting on something without entitlement to assert it suggests a problematic gap ...Conflating practical indispensability with epistemic warrant creates a regress: ...Hinges (like 'I have hands') are causally necessary for inquiry but epistemicall...
    +3 moreShow less
    The hinge/warrant distinction is unclear: if hinges are genuinely believed, with...This framework may just relabel skeptical problems rather than solve them—declar...Wittgenstein's distinction preserves both that hinges ground knowledge and that ...

    Details

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