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
    Different modes of presentation associated with co-refere... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Different modes of presentation associated with co-referential names can be used to distinguish the propositions expressed by sentences containing those names.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.The mode of presentation associated with 'Hesperus' differs from that associated with 'Phosphorus'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modes of presentation contribute something different to the proposition expressed by each name.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the inputs to propositional construction differ, the resulting propositions differ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositions are structured entities composed solely of objects and properties, not psychological modes of presentation (Russellian direct reference).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Hesperus is a planet' and 'Phosphorus is a planet' express the same singular proposition, since Venus itself—not a description—is the propositional constituent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Apparent cognitive differences between co-referential names are facts about believers' epistemic states, not differences in propositional content (Salmon, Soames).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's modal arguments establish that names are rigid designators whose semantic value is exhausted by their referent across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If modes of presentation were genuine semantic contributors, co-referential names would differ in modal profile, but 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is necessarily true—not contingently so.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The necessary a posteriori status of identity statements like 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is fully explicable by distinguishing epistemic from metaphysical necessity, leaving no explanatory role for Fregean senses.
      ?

      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 Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    'Hesperus is a planet' and 'Phosphorus is a planet' express the same singular pr...Apparent cognitive differences between co-referential names are facts about beli...If modes of presentation were genuine semantic contributors, co-referential name...If the inputs to propositional construction differ, the resulting propositions d...
    +5 moreShow less
    Kripke's modal arguments establish that names are rigid designators whose semant...Modes of presentation contribute something different to the proposition expresse...Propositions are structured entities composed solely of objects and properties, ...The mode of presentation associated with 'Hesperus' differs from that associated...The necessary a posteriori status of identity statements like 'Hesperus is Phosp...

    Similar

    Two names can present the same referent via different modes of present...87%Fregean semantics explains this apparent difference by positing that c...86%Modes of presentation contribute something different to the propositio...82%Empty names can be used in sentences to express propositions.81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions
    View source passageHide passage
    If propositions are unstructured and distinct from sets, there are several possibilities for explaining their identity conditions. First, identity conditions might be specified in terms of possible attitudes. One possibility is this: P=Q if, necessarily whoever believes (asserts, denies, etc.) P believes (asserts, denies, etc.) Q, and vice versa. Second, proposition identity might be reduced to property identity in the manner of Myhill (1963) and Zalta (1983). Thus, Zalta (1983, 72) offers the
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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