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 Fregean propositions are more fine-grained than Russellian propositions

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Senses are individuated by cognitive significance, yet there is no principled criterion that prevents infinite regress in sense-individuation (as Dummett acknowledges).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a stable individuation criterion, 'more fine-grained' loses determinate meaning, since Fregean propositions may be indeterminate in number rather than merely more numerous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Direct reference theorists (Kaplan, Kripke) hold that names and indexicals contribute objects, not descriptive senses, to propositional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If names lack Fregean senses, co-referring names like 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' yield identical Fregean and Russellian propositions, collapsing the alleged fine-grainedness asymmetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Senses are objective, in that more than one person can express thoughts with a given sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Senses correspond many-one to objects (multiple senses can pick out the same object)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Russellian propositions correspond many-one to intensions (multiple Russellian propositions can share the same intension)
      ?

      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.