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
    A criterion that operates as a constitutive rule—like the... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The verification principle is self-undercutting and therefore cannot be accepted as a criterion of meaning

    A criterion that operates as a constitutive rule—like the rules of chess—cannot coherently be required to satisfy standards it itself defines.

    ?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.Constitutive rules create the domain they govern; chess rules don't exist prior to chess itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring a rule to satisfy standards it defines is circular: the rule would validate itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing constitutive rules from regulative ones depends on this independence principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some constitutive rules (e.g., grammar rules) are answerable to external standards of clarity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rules can simultaneously define a domain AND be rationally evaluated against broader coherence standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates 'self-validation' with 'coherent external evaluation'—these aren't the same.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Constitutive rules create the domain they govern; chess rules don't exist prior ...Distinguishing constitutive rules from regulative ones depends on this independe...Requiring a rule to satisfy standards it defines is circular: the rule would val...Rules can simultaneously define a domain AND be rationally evaluated against bro...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some constitutive rules (e.g., grammar rules) are answerable to external standar...The claim conflates 'self-validation' with 'coherent external evaluation'—these ...The verification principle is self-undercutting and therefore cannot be accepted...

    Details

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