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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.