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
    Perceptual contact with an object is not necessary for th... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Perceptual contact with an object is not necessary for thinking of that object directly, even without appeal to the dthat-operator.

    PerceptionPhilosophy 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
    ?
    • Direct thought about an object can be grounded by means other than perceptual contact or Kaplan's dthat-operator.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gareth Evans's 'Russellian' constraint holds that a genuine singular thought requires an information-preserving causal link to its object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without perceptual or quasi-perceptual contact, no such causal link is established, rendering the purported 'direct' thought indistinguishable from descriptive thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A thought that cannot be distinguished in its cognitive content from a description fails to meet the Russellian criterion for being genuinely object-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tyler Burge's anti-individualism entails that singular perceptual demonstratives derive their referential force from the subject's embeddedness in a causal-perceptual environment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any non-perceptual, non-dthat grounding for direct reference must still invoke some analogous anchoring relation to the object; absent this, reference becomes indeterminate by Quinean lights.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's inscrutability of reference argument shows that without a determinate anchoring relation, no unique object is singled out, undermining the very directness the claim asserts.
      ?

      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 LanguagePerception

    Related

    A thought that cannot be distinguished in its cognitive content from a descripti...Any non-perceptual, non-dthat grounding for direct reference must still invoke s...Direct thought about an object can be grounded by means other than perceptual co...Gareth Evans's 'Russellian' constraint holds that a genuine singular thought req...
    +3 moreShow less
    Quine's inscrutability of reference argument shows that without a determinate an...Tyler Burge's anti-individualism entails that singular perceptual demonstratives...Without perceptual or quasi-perceptual contact, no such causal link is establish...

    Similar

    Perceptual contact with an object is not necessary at all for an agent...87%Direct thought about an object can be grounded by means other than per...84%Direct thought about an object does not require that the thinking agen...78%Shape, contact, and movement characterize only objects as presented to...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions-singular
    View source passageHide passage
    Strawson maintained that an agent can demonstratively identify only objects that she has perceived. Neo-Russellians typically go a step further, claiming that an agent can think directly about objects she has not perceived in virtue of standing in the appropriate communicative chains ending in the object. So, even though you have never perceived Plato, we will safely suppose, you can nevertheless think directly about Plato in virtue of your standing in a communicative chain that ultimately trace
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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