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 A coherent semantics of Russell's formalized language cannot be provided on the basis that values of propositional functions are sentences.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If values of propositional functions are sentences, then sentences must also be substituted for propositional variables.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sentences are substituted for propositional variables, it would be necessary to take sentences as names of sentences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Taking sentences as names of sentences is semantically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's distinction between sense and reference requires that sentences refer to truth-values, not to other sentences, making sentential self-reference semantically degenerate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Russell's ramified type theory demands that propositional functions and their values occupy distinct ontological levels, prohibiting sentences from serving dual roles as both values and substituends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If sentences name sentences, the resulting self-referential structure generates the very semantic paradoxes Russell's theory of types was constructed to eliminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tarski's hierarchy of metalanguages establishes that a coherent semantics requires object-language expressions to be named by distinct metalanguage terms, never by co-level expressions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating sentences as names of sentences collapses the use-mention distinction that Quine identifies as foundational to any rigorous formal semantics.
      ?

      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.