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 subject's epistemic limitations regarding distinguishin... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The irreducibility of demonstrative identification to descriptive identification holds even if the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) is true

    A subject's epistemic limitations regarding distinguishing properties do not establish an ontological or semantic gap between demonstrative and descriptive modes of identification.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Demonstrative identification(The paper argues demonstrative identification is irreducible to descriptive identification)
    Singling out or referring to an object by means of a demonstrative act (e.g., pointing, indexical reference), as opposed to via a description
    Descriptive identification(Contrasted with demonstrative identification; the argument concerns whether demonstrative identification can be fully analyzed in descriptive terms)
    Singling out or referring to an object solely by means of a qualitative description that the object uniquely satisfies
    Epistemic
    "Epistemic" relates to knowledge—how we know things, what counts as knowledge, and whether we can trust what we believe to be true. It comes from the Greek word for knowledge and is used to describe questions about the reliability and validity of our beliefs and understanding. For example, "epistemic humility" means acknowledging the limits of what you can actually know for certain.
    Epistemic limitations(as a philosophical concept)

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    The built-in constraints on what humans can know or understand—basically, the limits of human knowledge and perception.
    Gap (ontological or semantic)(as used to describe separations or boundaries between different ways of understanding something)
    A real difference or distinction between two things—either in what they actually are (ontological) or in what they mean/refer to (semantic).
    Ontological
    "Ontological" refers to questions about what actually exists or is real. It's concerned with the fundamental nature of being—asking "What kinds of things are there?" rather than "How do we know about them?" For example, an ontological question might be whether numbers, ideas, or God actually exist as real things, or if they're just human inventions.
    semantic(describing the level of word meaning)
    Relating to the meaning of words and sentences.
    subject(Logical/grammatical ontology in Eisagoge)
    Either a sound signifying a meaning or a meaning signified by a certain sound

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    The irreducibility of demonstrative identification to descriptive identification...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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