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
    Occurrences are not referentially basic. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Occurrences are not referentially basic.

    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.Occurrences are standardly picked out dependently — e.g., 'the fire in that house' depends on reference to the house.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Occurrences do not form a structured framework that could ground the spatio-temporal framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Process ontologists like Whitehead hold that events and occurrences are the fundamental constituents of reality, not enduring particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If occurrences are ontologically basic, then referential practices tracking them need not derive from reference to continuants.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strawson's argument conflates epistemic dependence in language use with metaphysical or referential basicness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's event semantics grounds causal and action sentences in quantification over events as irreducible particulars in the logical form of language.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If events must be posited as primitive referential objects to capture the logical structure of ordinary causal claims, occurrences have referential autonomy Strawson's view cannot accommodate.
      ?

      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

    Davidson's event semantics grounds causal and action sentences in quantification...If events must be posited as primitive referential objects to capture the logica...If occurrences are ontologically basic, then referential practices tracking them...Occurrences are standardly picked out dependently — e.g., 'the fire in that hous...
    +3 moreShow less
    Occurrences do not form a structured framework that could ground the spatio-temp...Process ontologists like Whitehead hold that events and occurrences are the fund...Strawson's argument conflates epistemic dependence in language use with metaphys...

    Similar

    Occurrences are not referentially basic because they are picked out de...85%A category of reference is basic only if it is not parasitic on anothe...81%Reference to theoretical entities is not referentially basic.80%There is a basic category of items of reference.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: strawson
    View source passageHide passage
    How should we think of these descriptive relations? Strawson claims in chapter 1 that these descriptive relations are fundamentally spatio-temporal. That is, my ability to think of James I rests on thinking of him as the person ascending the throne in 1603, the present time being 2018. Ultimately I fix on him via his place in a spatio-temporal framework which is centred on my currently perceived environment. Strawson further points out that since we need to update this relational framework over
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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