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 Kaplan's own formal semantics for 'now' requires a character-content distinction, not a bare ⟨u,e⟩ index pair, making the pair insufficient.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Index pairs suffice functionally: ⟨u,e⟩ can encode all needed distinctions if character roles are assigned during grammar, not semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Character-content distinction may be notational: the claimed distinction could be formally equivalent to indexed expressions, not substantively novel.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Character determines content: 'now' has constant character but context-variable content, requiring distinction from mere index pairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bare indices cannot explain linguistic competence: speakers grasp 'now' without knowing the actual context, proving character is semantic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Compositional semantics requires character: complex sentences with 'now' need character-level rules to predict truth conditions systematically.
      ?

      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.