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 speaker's intention figures into the overall function that determines the creation or maintenance of a linguistic convention

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Linguistic conventions are constituted by regularities in behavior and mutual expectation, not by the mental states that accompany or produce them (Lewis 1969).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A convention persists even when speakers act without any occurrent intention referencing it, as with automatic or habitual linguistic behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, speaker intention is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the creation or maintenance of convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following argument establishes that meaning is fixed by public practice and training, not by any inner mental act of intending (Philosophical Investigations §§185-242).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no private intention can by itself determine correct application of a rule, then intentions cannot be the operative factor in constituting linguistic convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A speaker of a language is a member of the linguistic community in which the speaker speaks
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An intention that 'S' means m involves a belief that 'S' means m (as Beardsley himself holds)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Linguistic convention is a function of overall community understanding, treatment, and belief
      ?

      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.