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's puzzle shows that 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is informative in a way 'Hesperus is Hesperus' is not, which Russell's theory cannot explain without invoking distinct cognitive significance.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The informativeness difference reflects empirical discovery of identity, not semantic difference—both statements are equally true about the same fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's causal-historical theory explains informativeness without invoking cognitive significance, by grounding reference in causal origins not descriptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing informativeness from truth-value conflates psychology with semantics; a statement's meaning needn't match how it strikes a rational agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Identity statements like 'a=a' are analytic and knowable a priori, while 'Hesperus=Phosphorus' requires empirical astronomical discovery.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Russell's Descriptivist theory treats both statements as reducing to property-identity, failing to explain the epistemic difference in informativeness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cognitive significance (the way a name presents its referent) must differ between names to account for rational agents accepting one but not the other.
      ?

      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.