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
    Logically proper names such as 'this' and 'that' must ref... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Logically proper names such as 'this' and 'that' must refer directly to objects rather than via descriptive content

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.Logically proper names resist analysis into descriptive terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a term cannot be analyzed descriptively, it must refer directly to its object
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Demonstratives like 'this' are context-sensitive and require a completing description or cognitive demonstration to determine their referent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a term requires contextual supplementation to fix reference, its reference is partly constituted by descriptive or intentional content, not purely direct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's puzzle shows that co-referential singular terms can differ in cognitive significance, which pure direct reference theories cannot explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'this' and 'that' referred purely directly with no descriptive content, two uses referring to the same object would be cognitively interchangeable, which they demonstrably are not.
      ?

      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 Language

    Related

    Demonstratives like 'this' are context-sensitive and require a completing descri...Frege's puzzle shows that co-referential singular terms can differ in cognitive ...If 'this' and 'that' referred purely directly with no descriptive content, two u...If a term cannot be analyzed descriptively, it must refer directly to its object
    +2 moreShow less
    If a term requires contextual supplementation to fix reference, its reference is...Logically proper names resist analysis into descriptive terms

    Similar

    The pronoun 'this' used without any identifying concept is purely sync...77%The Millian-Russellian holds that the content of a proper name is the ...76%Propositions are the referents of 'that'-clauses.76%The sense of a proper name is objective, not merely subjective like an...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consciousness-intentionality
    View source passageHide passage
    The development of externalist conceptions of intentionality informs the reception of Russell’s legacy in contemporary philosophy of mind as well. Russell also helped to put in play a conception of the intentionality of mental states, according to which each such state is seen as involving the individual’s “acquaintance with a proposition” (counterpart to Fregean “grasping”)—which proposition is at once both what is understood in understanding expressions by which the state of mind is reported,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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