Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If ostensive definition and practical mastery can anchor meaning without further semiotic mediation, the regress is not necessary but merely possible.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Ostensive definition requires grasping which feature the gesture picks out—itself a meaning relation needing explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Practical mastery demonstrates competence but doesn't establish what makes that competence meaningful rather than merely habitual.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Claiming regress is merely 'possible' concedes it's real; if foundationalism fails, the burden shifts to explaining why these cases work.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Children successfully acquire language through ostensive pointing and imitation without explicit metalinguistic explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box argument shows private definitions fail, but public ostension with practice succeeds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Infinite regress only threatens if meaning requires propositional justification; embodied mastery provides non-propositional grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42