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
    Gregory of Rimini does not defend logical realism regardi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Gregory claims that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gregory holds that the complexe significabile, though not a thing (res), still functions as a distinct intentional object of propositional cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A position can affirm ontological nihilism about X while still granting X logical or semantic reality as a truth-bearer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying thinghood (res) is not equivalent to denying logical realism, since realism about abstracta admits non-substantial modes of being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Assigning propositional content a sui generis cognitive function structurally parallels Fregean Gedanken, which are real without being physical or mental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A thinker who assigns propositions irreducible semantic roles in truth and knowledge cannot coherently be classified as a non-realist about propositional content.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A position can affirm ontological nihilism about X while still granting X logica...A thinker who assigns propositions irreducible semantic roles in truth and knowl...Assigning propositional content a sui generis cognitive function structurally pa...Denying thinghood (res) is not equivalent to denying logical realism, since real...
    +3 moreShow less
    Gregory claims that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil)Gregory explicitly follows Adam Wodeham in treating the complexe significabile a...Gregory holds that the complexe significabile, though not a thing (res), still f...

    Similar

    Gregory claims that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil)79%Kant insists that the Categorical Imperative is not a logical truth (o...79%The complexe significabile must be something mind-independent, althoug...77%Platonists do not need to argue against Maddy's immanent realism when ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: gregory-rimini
    View source passageHide passage
    Gregory adopted Wodeham’s theory and tailored it where necessary to his own thought. The complexe significabile, once thought to be Gregory’s invention, is neither the proposition itself, nor individual things in the world, nor the arrangement of things in the world. The exact status of Gregory’s complexe significabile has been much discussed. In a nutshell, there are three main interpretations. The first one builds on Gregory’s claim that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil), and thus
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit