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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.