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 If the name-referent relation were merely linguistic, there would be no explanation for why co-referential proper names can differ in cognitive value, yet this difference is a substantive logical phenomenon requiring analysis beyond convention.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive value differences reflect speaker psychology and epistemic access, not metaphysical properties of the name-referent relation itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Linguistic conventions governing names—their origin, description-clusters, and use-conditions—fully explain why co-referential names feel cognitively distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing non-linguistic entities like senses multiplies explanatory burdens without empirical evidence beyond the philosophical intuition needing explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Frege's puzzle shows 'Hesperus is Hesperus' and 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' differ in informativeness despite identical referents, requiring explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Linguistic conventions alone cannot account for why names with identical referential content produce different cognitive effects on competent speakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The name-referent relation must involve non-linguistic modes of presentation that structure how subjects grasp the same object differently.
      ?

      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.