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
    Premise 2 of the supporting argument embeds a Fregean the... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There is a property of goodness that is not identical to any naturalistic property of X-ness

    Premise 2 of the supporting argument embeds a Fregean theory of meaning that conflates sense with reference, which Kripke and Putnam's causal-historical semantics rejects.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's rigid designator account shows names refer directly via causal chains, not through descriptive senses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment proves two terms with identical senses can have different referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's sense-reference conflation cannot explain how speakers successfully refer using incomplete conceptual grasp.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Frege explicitly distinguished sense from reference; the claim misrepresents his actual semantic framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal-historical semantics faces its own problems (reference magnetism, circularity) that don't eliminate competing theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both frameworks address different explanatory targets; rejecting Frege doesn't require endorsing causal-historical semantics exclusively.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Both frameworks address different explanatory targets; rejecting Frege doesn't r...Causal-historical semantics faces its own problems (reference magnetism, circula...Frege explicitly distinguished sense from reference; the claim misrepresents his...Frege's sense-reference conflation cannot explain how speakers successfully refe...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kripke's rigid designator account shows names refer directly via causal chains, ...Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment proves two terms with identical senses ca...There is a property of goodness that is not identical to any naturalistic proper...

    Details

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