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
    Coordinations with objects give empirical content to impl... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Coordinations with objects give empirical content to implicitly defined concepts, transforming them into full-blooded concepts rather than empty place-holders.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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.Implicitly defined concepts are only related to other elements of the axiom system until coordinated with extra-linguistic things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Objects coordinated with concepts are distinguished by possession of the properties in terms of which the designating concepts are defined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coordination itself requires prior conceptual resources to identify which objects possess the relevant properties, generating a regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Neurath and Quine showed that any coordination between concepts and objects is mediated by further linguistic and theoretical commitments, never by bare contact with things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If coordinations are theory-laden, they cannot serve as the extra-linguistic anchor Schlick requires to distinguish full-blooded concepts from empty placeholders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no coordination uniquely determines a concept's application to future cases, leaving content indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If coordinations underdetermine application, they cannot transform implicitly defined concepts into determinate, full-blooded concepts as Schlick claims.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Coordination itself requires prior conceptual resources to identify which object...If coordinations are theory-laden, they cannot serve as the extra-linguistic anc...If coordinations underdetermine application, they cannot transform implicitly de...Implicitly defined concepts are only related to other elements of the axiom syst...
    +3 moreShow less
    Neurath and Quine showed that any coordination between concepts and objects is m...Objects coordinated with concepts are distinguished by possession of the propert...Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no coordination uniquely ...

    Similar

    Existent objects exemplify properties in the ordinary sense.81%Considering objects as things in themselves by means of the categories...79%The Transcendental Analytic aims to show that certain concepts and pri...79%Information objects are abstract objects.78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: schlick
    View source passageHide passage
    Schlick claimed the method of definition by axioms was implicit because, unlike explicit definition, occurrences of the defined term cannot necessarily be replaced by a combination of the expressions which define it. And he praised the method for its specification of meanings independently of any intuitive content. Implicitly defined terms possess a clarity and precision of scope which cannot be achieved by concepts defined by abstraction from experience. Since, of course, axiomatic definitions
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit