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 Appearance properties cannot be named

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Phenomenal concepts like 'the way red looks to me now' function as genuine singular terms that pick out appearance properties directly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a term reliably co-refers to a property across uses, it names that property regardless of whether it does so via a descriptive mode of presentation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Philosophers like Loar and Levine have defended phenomenal concepts as a distinct naming mechanism not reducible to functional or descriptive reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's framework allows ostensive definition to fix the reference of a name even when the named item resists descriptive characterization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent can ostensively stipulate 'let A name this very appearance' during an episode of experience, thereby naming an appearance property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thau's argument establishes only that appearance properties lack canonical descriptions, not that ostensive baptism fails for them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Thau's argument for appearance properties commits him to the view that they cannot be named
      ?

      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.