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 Grice's cooperative maxims and Stalnaker's context-change semantics both treat successive utterances as updating distinct contexts, not as a single self-undermining act.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Performative utterances like 'I apologize' self-referentially affect their own truth-conditions, suggesting contexts need not remain strictly separable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Presupposition accommodation shows speakers can introduce content that revises prior context retroactively, blurring the boundary between distinct updates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some conversational repairs and clarifications explicitly acknowledge prior utterances as failed or misleading, suggesting single-act self-undermining occurs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Grice's maxims presuppose participants track how each utterance fulfills or violates cooperative principles, requiring distinct conversational states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Stalnaker's model explicitly defines context as a set of possible worlds that updates incrementally; successive utterances narrow rather than collapse context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If utterances were self-undermining acts, communication would require listeners to reject premises while accepting conclusions, violating rational interpretation.
      ?

      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.