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 (uniquely referring) descriptions behave like proper names (singular terms of logic)

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Proper names are rigid designators that refer to the same individual across all possible worlds, regardless of which descriptions that individual satisfies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Definite descriptions are non-rigid: 'the inventor of bifocals' picks out different individuals in worlds where Franklin never invented bifocals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If names and descriptions have fundamentally different modal profiles, they cannot be logically equivalent singular terms, contra Russell's assimilation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's puzzle shows that 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is informative in a way 'Hesperus is Hesperus' is not, which Russell's theory cannot explain without invoking distinct cognitive significance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If descriptions behaved like genuine proper names, substituting co-referring descriptions would always preserve cognitive significance, but 'the evening star is the morning star' remains empirically surprising.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the logical equivalence Russell posits obscures a semantically crucial distinction between object-directed reference and descriptive satisfaction conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If there is just one F, then 'The F is F' is true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the F equals the G, and the F is H, then the G is H
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These theorems follow from the logic of quantifiers and identity alone
      ?

      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.