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 Performative forgiveness need not possess only one kind of illocutionary force.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Austin's speech act taxonomy requires that each illocutionary act possess a single, determinate force fixed by its felicity conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing 'I forgive you' to bear multiple simultaneous illocutionary forces collapses the analytic distinctions Austin's framework was designed to preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a univocal illocutionary force, the utterance loses the normative accountability structure that makes performatives binding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Searle's principle of expressibility holds that the meaning of a sincere performative is exhausted by its propositional content and a single corresponding illocutionary point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If forgiveness utterances genuinely possessed multiple irreducible illocutionary forces, speakers could not know which commitment they were undertaking, undermining the practice's moral coherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1."I forgive you" can function as both a behabitive and commissive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some hold that it can function as a behabitive, commissive, and declarative.
      ?

      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.