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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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