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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.