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
    Gregory explicitly follows Adam Wodeham in treating the c... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Gregory of Rimini does not defend logical realism regarding the complexe significabile

    Gregory explicitly follows Adam Wodeham in treating the complexe significabile as that which is known (scitum) and believed (creditum), giving it an ineliminable epistemic role.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Wodeham's framework solves the problem of false belief by making the complexe significabile the direct object of cognition, not mental acts alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gregory's adoption of this doctrine preserves medieval realism about propositions while avoiding psychologism about knowledge and belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The epistemic role of complexe significabilia explains how we can think the same thought across different mental states and languages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Treating complexe significabilia as what is known invokes obscure abstract entities whose ontological status remains philosophically unclear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This framework risks collapsing the distinction between the content of thought and its truth conditions, conflating semantics with metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern externalist epistemology better explains belief and knowledge through causal relations to the world, not intermediary semantic entities.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Gregory of Rimini does not defend logical realism regarding the complexe signifi...Gregory's adoption of this doctrine preserves medieval realism about proposition...Modern externalist epistemology better explains belief and knowledge through cau...The epistemic role of complexe significabilia explains how we can think the same...
    +3 moreShow less
    This framework risks collapsing the distinction between the content of thought a...Treating complexe significabilia as what is known invokes obscure abstract entit...Wodeham's framework solves the problem of false belief by making the complexe si...

    Details

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