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
    Cognition of the terms of a per se nota proposition is no... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Cognition of the terms of a per se nota proposition is not sufficient to ensure the causal mechanism that leads to evidence and certitude

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All languages are conventional by nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is possible to cognize terms whose signification remains unknown to the cognizing subject
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Species or cognitions cannot be treated as linguistic elements of thought
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Per se nota propositions are self-evident precisely because their predicates are contained in the definitions of their subjects, not in linguistic conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognizing a term adequately just is grasping its definition, so full term-cognition analytically includes understanding the definitional content that grounds evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aquinas and Boethius both ground per se notum in real definitional relations, making causal sufficiency follow necessarily from genuine term-comprehension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Crathorn conflates merely hearing a word with genuinely cognizing the term, but the latter requires conceptual grasp sufficient to trigger evidential assent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Aristotelian tradition distinguishes nominal from real definition precisely so that full cognition of terms already embeds the categorical relations needed for self-evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language3 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    All languages are conventional by natureAquinas and Boethius both ground per se notum in real definitional relations, ma...Cognizing a term adequately just is grasping its definition, so full term-cognit...Crathorn conflates merely hearing a word with genuinely cognizing the term, but ...
    +4 moreShow less
    It is possible to cognize terms whose signification remains unknown to the cogni...Per se nota propositions are self-evident precisely because their predicates are...Species or cognitions cannot be treated as linguistic elements of thought

    Similar

    A particular proposition may lack sufficient evidential support (no re...74%Believing a proposition one does not take to be more likely than not c...74%What qualifies non-psychological propositions as our evidence in philo...73%The Second Analogy does not establish that particular causal laws are ...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: crathorn
    View source passageHide passage
    Crathorn thus had to emend Ockham’s theory of evident knowledge, because intuitive cognition is no more the guarantee of any certitude regarding the existence of extramental things. In addition, the cognition of the terms of a proposition — even a per se nota proposition — is not sufficient, according to Crathorn, to ensure the causal mechanism that leads to evidence and certitude. Indeed, as we shall see below, Crathorn refuses to treat the species or cognitions as linguistic elements of though
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The Aristotelian tradition distinguishes nominal from real definition precisely ...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit