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
    It is possible to cognize terms whose signification remai... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Cognition of the terms of a per se nota proposition is not sufficient to ensure the causal mechanism that leads to evidence and certitude

    It is possible to cognize terms whose signification remains unknown to the cognizing subject

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Skepticism
    1 linked

    Related

    All languages are conventional by natureCognition of the terms of a per se nota proposition is not sufficient to ensure ...Species or cognitions cannot be treated as linguistic elements of thought

    Similar

    Empirical knowledge of the things signified by terms is usually needed76%We can cognize extramental sensible objects intellectually as existing74%Cognition of terms with unknown signification cannot ground certitude74%Sentences must signify more than just the understandings of their cons...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: crathorn
    View source passageHide passage
    Crathorn thus had to emend Ockham’s theory of evident knowledge, because intuitive cognition is no more the guarantee of any certitude regarding the existence of extramental things. In addition, the cognition of the terms of a proposition — even a per se nota proposition — is not sufficient, according to Crathorn, to ensure the causal mechanism that leads to evidence and certitude. Indeed, as we shall see below, Crathorn refuses to treat the species or cognitions as linguistic elements of though

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective