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
    Either Pierre's doxastic position cannot be as described ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Either Pierre's doxastic position cannot be as described in §2.6 or London and Londres are different cities (or we must punt).

    Personal IdentityPhilosophy 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.Church's argument implies that if Pierre's doxastic position is as described, then London and Londres are distinct objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The standard account of identity holds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's puzzle shows that Pierre's doxastic position generates contradiction even under substitution-resistant belief contexts, without requiring distinct objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The puzzle's force derives from rationality norms on belief, not from metaphysical claims about identity, so Church's modal argument conflates epistemic and ontological levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A Fregean solution—that 'London' and 'Londres' express distinct senses—dissolves the contradiction without positing distinct cities or denying Pierre's described beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russellian accounts of propositional attitudes, as developed by Salmon and Soames, permit an agent to believe and disbelieve a single singular proposition under different guises without contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there is no genuine doxastic contradiction in Pierre's position on the Salmon-Soames view, the disjunction 'bad doxastic state OR distinct cities' is a false dichotomy.
      ?

      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

    Personal IdentityPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    A Fregean solution—that 'London' and 'Londres' express distinct senses—dissolves...Church's argument implies that if Pierre's doxastic position is as described, th...If there is no genuine doxastic contradiction in Pierre's position on the Salmon...Kripke's puzzle shows that Pierre's doxastic position generates contradiction ev...
    +3 moreShow less
    Russellian accounts of propositional attitudes, as developed by Salmon and Soame...The puzzle's force derives from rationality norms on belief, not from metaphysic...The standard account of identity holds.

    Similar

    If Pierre's doxastic position is as described, then London and Londres...80%The standard account of identity entails that Pierre's doxastic positi...78%Church's argument implies that if Pierre's doxastic position is as des...78%Pierre thinks that London and Londres are different cities78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    Church’s argument implies that if Pierre’s doxastic position is as described (in §2.6), then London and Londres are distinct objects. Assuming the standard account of identity, the result is that either Pierre’s doxastic position cannot be as described or else London and Londres are different cities (or else we must punt). Since London and Londres are not different cities, the standard account entails that Pierre’s doxastic position cannot be as described (or else we must punt). This was Church’
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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