Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Invoking merely possible tokens to ground truth-conditions smuggles in irreducibly modal facts, making the account explanatorily circular.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some foundational concepts (like possibility itself) need not be explained in non-modal terms without circularity being vicious.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Possible tokens can be understood structurally via their role in a semantic system, making their modality non-primitive there.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The charge assumes we must eliminate all modal vocabulary to avoid circularity, but mutual dependence among concepts is often legitimate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Truth-conditions require determinate facts about what would make a statement true, not mere appeals to unexplained possibilities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Possible tokens are abstract entities whose existence and identity conditions are themselves modal facts requiring explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If modal facts are primitive and unexplained, grounding truth in them leaves the semantics of modality itself unaccounted for.
?
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.