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 Sentences (17) and (18) do not differ in meaning

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Proper names in belief contexts contribute their mode of presentation (Sinn), not merely their referent, to propositional content (Frege 1892).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Clark Kent' and 'Superman' present the same individual under distinct cognitive guises, making them semantically non-interchangeable in intensional contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If sentences (17) and (18) involve propositional attitude reports, substituting co-referring names can alter truth conditions, proving a meaning difference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Two-dimensional semantics distinguishes a term's primary intension (contextually determined referent) from its secondary intension (modally fixed referent) (Chalmers 1996).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Clark Kent' and 'Superman' share a secondary intension but diverge in primary intension, since different epistemic scenarios determine different referents for each name.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sentences differing in primary intension differ in one semantically relevant dimension of meaning, undermining the claim that (17) and (18) are meaning-identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Millian-Russellian holds that the content of a proper name is the object to which that name refers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Clark Kent' and 'Superman' are proper names that refer to the same object
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sentences (17) and (18) differ only by substitution of 'Clark Kent' for 'Superman'
      ?

      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.