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
    Learning the rules R is sufficient to fully grasp '∃' — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The difference between '∃' and 'W' cannot be discerned by reference or semantic value alone, but only by examining their senses

    Learning the rules R is sufficient to fully grasp '∃'

    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

    Related

    One could learn the rules R' without fully understanding 'W'The difference between '∃' and 'W' cannot be discerned by reference or semantic ...This difference between '∃' and 'W' is a difference in their senses, not their s...Understanding 'W' requires knowledge of the human institution of marriage

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Similar

    One could learn the rules R' without fully understanding 'W'87%Expressions like 'I' must be associated with rules (characters) that d...82%Transformation rules must match the semantic rules by being sound with...80%Expressions have meaning because there are rules or norms in force for...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logical-constants
    View source passageHide passage
    Yet intuitively there is an important difference between these constants. We might describe it this way: whereas learning the rules \(R\) is sufficient to impart a full grasp of \(\dq{\exists}\), one could learn the rules \(R'\) without fully understanding what is meant by \(\dq{W}\). To understand \(\dq{W}\) one must know about the human institution of marriage, and that accounts for our feeling that \(\dq{W}\) is not “topic-neutral” enough to be a logical constant. However, this difference bet

    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