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 must have structures of the sort Frege and Russell described.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russellian structured propositions face the 'unity of the proposition' problem: no account adequately explains what binds constituents into a truth-apt whole.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's solution via the concept/object distinction generates a vicious regress, as Kerry's objection and subsequent literature demonstrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that cannot solve its own constitutive problem—propositional unity—lacks sufficient theoretical warrant to be treated as necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositionless semantic theories (e.g., Davidsonian truth-conditional semantics) account for sentential meaning without positing structured abstract objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If meaning can be fully explained by compositional truth conditions without appealing to propositions, then positing Fregean/Russellian structures is ontologically superfluous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Meaningful sentences can be true or false depending on how the world is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The very possibility of such meaningful sentences requires propositions with Fregean/Russellian structures.
      ?

      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.