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 revised theory would need to explain how 'X is good' is... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Any revised Russellian theory would have to distinguish between different uses of 'good', giving one account for asserted contexts and a different account for unasserted contexts

    A revised theory would need to explain how 'X is good' is meaningful in unasserted contexts

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Any revised Russellian theory would have to distinguish between different uses o...Explaining unasserted contexts requires a different semantic account than the op...Russell's original theory only accounts for asserted uses of 'X is good'

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Any revised Russellian theory would have to distinguish between differ...89%Russell's theory cannot account for the numerous cases where 'X is goo...88%Russell's original theory only accounts for asserted uses of 'X is goo...87%Russell's theory can only account for cases where 'X is good' is used ...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: russell-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    The person who accepts this argument clearly does not wish that everyone should always desire to contemplate beautiful works of art. But she subscribes to premise (2) nonetheless. Thus the sentence “it is always good to contemplate beautiful works of art”, cannot generally be construed as an optative when it occurs in an embedded context (that is when it occurs as a sub-sentence within a larger, more complex sentence). This is already a very damaging objection to Russell’s theory of how “good” f

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective