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
    A rationalist can accommodate Kripke's examples by moving... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A rationalist can accommodate Kripke's examples by moving to a 2D semantic framework.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The 2D framework can be used to isolate an aspect of meaning that satisfies the 'golden triangle' of constitutive relations among meaning, apriority and modality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The 2D framework relies on a stipulated 'primary intension' that does not recover genuine semantic content speakers associate with terms like 'water'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's modal intuitions are grounded in metaphysical necessity, not epistemic possibility, so no epistemic reconstrual of meaning can defuse them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Collapsing metaphysical and epistemic modality into a single 2D matrix conflates distinct explanatory domains, leaving the original rationalist problem untouched.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scott Soames argues that the diagonal proposition generated by 2D semantics is not the same proposition as what a speaker asserts, undermining the framework's semantic credentials.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If primary intensions are defined contextually rather than cognitively, the 'golden triangle' connection to apriority requires an independent theory of cognition that 2D semantics does not supply.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    Collapsing metaphysical and epistemic modality into a single 2D matrix conflates...If primary intensions are defined contextually rather than cognitively, the 'gol...Kripke's modal intuitions are grounded in metaphysical necessity, not epistemic ...Scott Soames argues that the diagonal proposition generated by 2D semantics is n...
    +2 moreShow less
    The 2D framework can be used to isolate an aspect of meaning that satisfies the ...The 2D framework relies on a stipulated 'primary intension' that does not recove...

    Similar

    Carnap holds that rational discourse requires a framework to be in pla...79%Alston employs 'rationality' loosely across his argument.78%No one meaning of 'rationality' is sufficient to support all the roles...78%Alston's use of 'rationality' is indefensible because no single meanin...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: two-dimensional-semantics
    View source passageHide passage
    This simple rationalist picture of meaning and modality, however, was undermined by externalist thought experiments. Kripke’s (1980) observation that certain necessary truths, like ‘Hesperus = Phosphorus’, are only knowable aposteriori threatens both the idea that linguistic competence affords apriori access to the truth- and applicability-conditions of one’s words and the idea that necessary truths are always apriori knowable. The guiding idea behind 2D rationalism is that a rationalist can acc
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit