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
    Shared intention to produce a token of a given word type ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Shared intention to produce a token of a given word type cannot explain what makes all tokens of that word tokens of the same word.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.Peirce's original type-token distinction treats types as abstract objects whose identity is independent of any psychological states of language users.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An abstracta-based account explains cross-community and cross-temporal token identity without requiring coordinated intention, which intention-based accounts cannot achieve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intentions vary across speakers and times, so intention-based accounts entail that 'color' tokens by different communities might constitute tokens of distinct types, which is implausible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of past uses fixes a unique rule for future token production, undermining intention-based accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If shared intention cannot determine correct future application of a word type, it cannot serve as the identity condition unifying all tokens under that type.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Explaining what the word 'color' is by appealing to the intention to produce a token of 'color' presupposes knowledge of what 'color' is, making the explanation circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Circular explanations of this kind put the cart before the horse and do not constitute genuine explanations of the type.
      ?

      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 Language

    Related

    An abstracta-based account explains cross-community and cross-temporal token ide...Circular explanations of this kind put the cart before the horse and do not cons...Explaining what the word 'color' is by appealing to the intention to produce a t...If shared intention cannot determine correct future application of a word type, ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Intentions vary across speakers and times, so intention-based accounts entail th...Kripke's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of past uses fixe...Peirce's original type-token distinction treats types as abstract objects whose ...

    Similar

    The only property all tokens of a word type generally share is being t...85%Not all tokens of the same word type resemble each other in any ordina...85%One of the primary justifications for positing word types is that they...84%Intention helps identify which type a token is a token of, but cannot ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: types-tokens
    View source passageHide passage
    However, the final nail in the coffin for the suggestion according to which all tokens of the same word have the "same sound" is that words can be mispronounced. As Kaplan (1990) has argued, a word can suffer extreme mispronunciation and still be (a token of) the same word. He asks us to imagine a test subject, who faithfully repeats each word she is told. After a time, we put filters on her that radically alter the results of her efforts. Nonetheless, we would say she is saying the word she hea
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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