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
    Someone likes Juliet and Romeo likes someone (∃x[L(x,j)] ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Someone likes Juliet and Romeo likes someone (∃x[L(x,j)] ∧ ∃x[L(r,x)]).

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.Romeo likes Juliet (L(r,j)).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A name can be replaced with a variable bound by an existential quantifier.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Existential generalization over names presupposes a Russellian referentialist semantics that Fregean sense-based theories reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under Frege's theory, 'Juliet' and 'Romeo' contribute modes of presentation, not bare objects, making substitution of variables non-trivial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference from L(r,j) to ∃x[L(x,j)] is only valid if names are directly referential, which is a substantive metaphysical assumption, not a logical truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sharing a variable 'x' across two existential quantifiers in separate conjuncts creates a misleading syntactic appearance of a linked ranging, which Prior warned distorts logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The formalization ∃x[L(x,j)] ∧ ∃x[L(r,x)] uses 'x' in scopes where it is semantically unrelated, violating the Quinean criterion that canonical notation must eliminate such ambiguity.
      ?

      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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    A name can be replaced with a variable bound by an existential quantifier.Existential generalization over names presupposes a Russellian referentialist se...Romeo likes Juliet (L(r,j)).Sharing a variable 'x' across two existential quantifiers in separate conjuncts ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The formalization ∃x[L(x,j)] ∧ ∃x[L(r,x)] uses 'x' in scopes where it is semanti...The inference from L(r,j) to ∃x[L(x,j)] is only valid if names are directly refe...Under Frege's theory, 'Juliet' and 'Romeo' contribute modes of presentation, not...

    Similar

    Romeo likes Juliet (L(r,j)).84%Everyone likes everyone (∀x∀y[L(x,y)]).79%The formula ∃x[L(x,x)] is well-formed and is true iff someone likes he...78%'Likes' can be described as a predicate satisfied by ordered pairs ⟨x,...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logical-form
    View source passageHide passage
    On Frege’s view, a single quantifier can bind an unsaturated position that is associated with a function that takes a single argument. But it is equally true that two quantifiers can bind two unsaturated positions associated with a function that takes a pair of arguments. For example, the proposition that everyone likes everyone can be represented with the formal sentence ‘\(\forall x \forall y [L(x, y)]\)’. Assuming that ‘Romeo’ and ‘Juliet’ indicate arguments, it follows that Romeo likes every
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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