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 Propositions are abstract, necessary existents that essentially and primitively represent the world as being a certain way, without any explanation being possible for this fact.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Representation is an intentional relation requiring a representing subject or functional role, not an intrinsic property of abstract objects (Searle, Brentano).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An abstract object with no causal powers or constituents cannot bear genuine intentionality without invoking explanatorily vacuous 'primitive' stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If representation requires no explanation for abstract propositions, the same move would trivially dissolve the mind-body problem by stipulating mental states 'primitively represent'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structured proposition theories (Russell, Soames, King) demonstrate that propositional unity and content derive from constituency relations among objects and properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If propositions have no constituents (P3), they cannot account for the compositionality of meaning, since 'snow is white' and 'grass is white' must differ structurally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.King's 2014 argument establishes that propositional representation is grounded in facts about language use and cognitive agents, not in primitively representational simples.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Propositions are abstract objects that exist necessarily.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Propositions essentially represent the world as being a certain way — this is a primitive, inexplicable fact about them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Propositions are simple and have no constituents.
      ?

      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.