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
    In a judgment 'S is P', the subject and predicate are mea... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    In a judgment 'S is P', the subject and predicate are meant both to be diverse and to form a unity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Etymologically, Urteil (judgment) involves Teilung (separation) of parts, so S and P are diverse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In saying 'S is P', the judging subject affirms the unity existing between S and P.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's analysis shows 'S is P' expresses a function-argument structure, not a unity of diverse entities but a truth-value via predication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If S and P form genuine unity, the copula 'is' becomes redundant, collapsing judgment into mere identity, which Frege's concept-object distinction forbids.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's multiple relation theory holds that judgment relates a mind to several objects independently, so no intrinsic S-P unity exists in the proposition itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The etymological inference from 'Urteil' to ontological structure commits a genetic fallacy, deriving logical form from linguistic accident rather than semantic analysis.
      ?

      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

    Etymologically, Urteil (judgment) involves Teilung (separation) of parts, so S a...Frege's analysis shows 'S is P' expresses a function-argument structure, not a u...If S and P form genuine unity, the copula 'is' becomes redundant, collapsing jud...In saying 'S is P', the judging subject affirms the unity existing between S and...
    +2 moreShow less
    Russell's multiple relation theory holds that judgment relates a mind to several...The etymological inference from 'Urteil' to ontological structure commits a gene...

    Similar

    Judgments of the form 'X is' or 'X is X' do not have distinct subject ...87%In saying 'S is P', the judging subject affirms the unity existing bet...87%If X is simple, 'X is' cannot be unpacked into a judgment with distinc...85%There must be a certain way in which each of a subject's representatio...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: hegel
    View source passageHide passage
    In general this is how the Logic proceeds: seeking its most basic and universal determination, thought posits a category to be reflected upon, finds then that this collapses due to a contradiction generated, like that generated by the category being, and so then seeks a further category with which to make retrospective senses of those contradictory categories. However, in turn the new category will generate some further contradictory negation and again the demand will arise for a further concept
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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