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
    Ramsey's argument that ontological issues can be settled ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Ramsey's argument that ontological issues can be settled in logico-linguistic terms is mistaken

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Logical grammar, as Wittgenstein showed in Tractatus 4.0031, can mislead us about ontological structure rather than reveal it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ramsey's dissolution of the particular/universal distinction via predicate-subject reversibility preserves logical equivalence but cannot determine which entities genuinely exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's criterion 'to be is to be the value of a variable' itself presupposes an ontology of objects, showing logico-linguistic methods are ontologically circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's truthmaker theory establishes that ontological commitments are grounded in what makes sentences true, not in the sentences' logical form alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ramsey's claim that 'Socrates is wise' and 'Wisdom is a characteristic of Socrates' are logically equivalent leaves underdetermined whether properties, tropes, or bare particulars constitute reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ontological issues cannot ever be settled in logico-linguistic terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ramsey attempted to settle ontological issues through logical and linguistic analysis
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Armstrong's truthmaker theory establishes that ontological commitments are groun...Logical grammar, as Wittgenstein showed in Tractatus 4.0031, can mislead us abou...Ontological issues cannot ever be settled in logico-linguistic termsQuine's criterion 'to be is to be the value of a variable' itself presupposes an...
    +3 moreShow less
    Ramsey attempted to settle ontological issues through logical and linguistic ana...Ramsey's claim that 'Socrates is wise' and 'Wisdom is a characteristic of Socrat...Ramsey's dissolution of the particular/universal distinction via predicate-subje...

    Similar

    The criticism that Ramsey mistakenly attempted to settle ontological i...93%Ramsey attempted to settle ontological issues through logical and ling...86%Ontological issues cannot ever be settled in logico-linguistic terms84%Katz's argument fails to take linguistic pluralism into account as an ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ramsey
    View source passageHide passage
    (Anscombe [1959, 108], Geach [1950, 474–5; 1975, 143–4] and Dummett [1973, 63–4] have all criticised Ramsey’s argument here on the grounds that whilst a predicate may be negated a name may not – although see Anscombe’s ‘Retractation’ [1965]. Coming from a different direction, Simons [1991, 159], Dokic and Engel [2002, 40–1] and Lowe [2004, 307] argue that Ramsey was mistaken to think that ontological issues could ever be settled in logico-linguistic terms. MacBride [2005a,b] argues that the form
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit