Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Even if Fitch's conjunction is an indexical expression, there is no reason to think it is non-rigid
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Kaplan's framework establishes that indexicals like 'I' and 'now' are paradigmatically rigid because their character fixes reference across contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Fitch's conjunction 'p and p is unknown' contains 'unknown' whose extension shifts with evaluating context, making its rigidity non-trivial to assert without argument.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The burden of proof lies with those claiming rigidity for context-sensitive expressions, not with those questioning it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Kvanvig's epistemic indexical reading entails that 'unknown' picks out different propositions relative to different epistemic communities or times.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A term that picks out different properties relative to different contexts of evaluation satisfies the standard semantic criterion for non-rigidity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Indexicality does not imply non-rigidity
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Kvanvig's argument at most establishes that Fitch's conjunction is indexical, not that it is non-rigid
?
How convincing is this?
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.