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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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