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 Proper names must have a sense, not merely a referent.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Proper names, unlike common nouns, do not convey any descriptive content that would be false if the bearer lacked the associated properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill argued in 'A System of Logic' that proper names are 'non-connotative': they denote individuals but do not imply any attribute of those individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If proper names carried sense in the way common nouns do, substituting 'Aristotle' for 'the pupil of Plato' should preserve truth-value in all contexts, yet it demonstrably does not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The fact that nomina signify substance-with-quality in Latin grammar reflects a syntactic classification, not a semantic thesis about reference and sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's modal argument establishes that proper names are rigid designators that track the same individual across all possible worlds, independent of any descriptive sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sharing grammatical category with common nouns does not entail sharing the same semantic mechanism, since syntactic form and semantic function are independently variable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The proper name is a subdivision of the nomen (name), which is a fully-fledged part of speech.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The nomen signifies substance with quality — it signifies a thing of a certain sort.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because proper names share the same semantic properties as common names, proper names can and must be taken to have a sense.
      ?

      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.