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 Frege demonstrated that logical constants like 'and' and 'not' cannot be implicitly defined by their structural roles without presupposing their meanings.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Structural roles can fully determine meaning without prior semantic content, as Wittgenstein argued for language games.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege conflates psychological understanding with logical definition; meanings can be structural without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern formal semantics successfully defines logical constants through truth conditions derived from structural roles alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Logical constants have determinate meanings independent of any formal system, which cannot be derived from structural roles alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Implicit definition through role-play leads to circularity: understanding 'and' requires already knowing what 'and' means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference rules governing logical constants presuppose their semantic content to avoid equivocation.
      ?

      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.