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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If hinges are merely structural features of language-games, their stability across all human cultures suggests they track objective reality, not convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'not doubted' and 'structurally undoubted' may be artificial; hinge-convictions' universal indubitability implies evidential weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein equivocates between pragmatic indispensability and semantic emptiness; functional necessity arguably constitutes weak evidence of truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Doubt requires a framework of accepted background beliefs; infinite regress proves foundational certainties must be structurally undoubted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Language-games are constitutively defined by their rules; hinge propositions function as rules, not truth-claims requiring justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our actual epistemic practice shows we never justify basic convictions like 'I have a body'—we simply use them as operational foundations.
      ?

      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.