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
    Russell is better able to handle the reduplication argume... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Russell is better able to handle the reduplication argument than the Fregean

    Perception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sally can demonstratively identify her sense data that are caused by Bill and not Bill*
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sally employs a descriptive condition that contains direct reference to her occurrent sense data
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This descriptive condition (though not purely qualitative) is one that Bill satisfies and Bill* does not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gareth Evans argued in 'The Varieties of Reference' that genuine singular thought requires a robust information-preserving causal link to the object itself, not merely to its sensory effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A Russellian logically proper name must directly acquaint the thinker with the named object, but acquaintance with sense data mediates rather than constitutes acquaintance with Bill as an extra-mental particular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the Russellian solution merely relocates the reduplication problem one level inward rather than dissolving it, leaving the account no better off than the Fregean.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sense data are themselves individuated by their qualitative character, so two subjectively identical sense data streams cannot ground determinate reference to numerically distinct causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Bill and Bill* produce phenomenally indistinguishable sense data in Sally, her demonstrative reference to 'these sense data' fails to privilege Bill over Bill* as the referent of her thought.
      ?

      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 LanguagePerception

    Related

    A Russellian logically proper name must directly acquaint the thinker with the n...Gareth Evans argued in 'The Varieties of Reference' that genuine singular though...If Bill and Bill* produce phenomenally indistinguishable sense data in Sally, he...Sally can demonstratively identify her sense data that are caused by Bill and no...
    +5 moreShow less
    Sally employs a descriptive condition that contains direct reference to her occu...Sense data are themselves individuated by their qualitative character, so two su...Therefore Sally's thoughts are determinately about Bill and not Bill* without re...Therefore the Russellian solution merely relocates the reduplication problem one...This descriptive condition (though not purely qualitative) is one that Bill sati...

    Similar

    The reduplication argument alone does not settle how much of our thoug...77%The reduplication argument establishes only that some direct reference...76%Evans' argument and Church's argument collapse into one another under ...76%Therefore, 'Superman' and 'Clark Kent' differ in sense.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: propositions-singular
    View source passageHide passage
    We end this section by briefly comparing Strawson's view with Russell's and the contemporary neo-Russellian's views. We have seen that, for Russell, like Strawson, demonstrative identification plays a crucial role, in the form of acquaintance. But unlike Strawson, Russell denies that we demonstratively identify extra-mental individuals. Russell can deliver the intuitively correct results that Sally's thoughts are determinately about Bill and not Bill*, even though she is not, on Russell's view,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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