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
    Necessarily equivalent propositions C and D, if treated a... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Hyperintensional distinctions between necessarily equivalent propositions are impossible.

    Necessarily equivalent propositions C and D, if treated as distinct, lead via negation to the conclusion that C and D are identical.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    Hyperintensional distinctions between necessarily equivalent propositions are im...This reductio shows that no hyperintensional distinction between necessarily equ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Facts corresponding to non-equivalent propositions are distinct from o...87%If two propositions are identical, they have the same truth value in a...85%Hyperintensional distinctions between necessarily equivalent propositi...85%Any two necessarily equivalent sentences express the same proposition.84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: hyperintensionality
    View source passageHide passage
    The objection, presented in Cresswell (2002) against structured propositions and suggested by Stalnaker (1996) against impossible worlds, can be illustrated by focusing on the meaning of negation. Given a statement \(A\), what truth-conditions can we offer for \({\sim}A\)? Plausibly, the truth conditions can be exhausted by specifying that \({\sim}A\) is true when \(A\) is false, and not otherwise. Since this exhausts the meaning of “\({\sim}\)”, it is tempting to identify the proposition \({\si

    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