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 Speaker meaning requires intending that the audience form the belief on the basis of their recognition of the speaker's intention to produce that belief

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sincerity conditions can be satisfied in assertion without any reflexive intention that belief-formation be grounded in audience recognition of that very intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Austin's illocutionary acts are conventionally constituted, not reducible to layered Gricean intentions, so the reflexive structure Grice posits is neither necessary nor sufficient for meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Schiffer's 'mutual knowledge' objection shows that Grice's original reflexive intention schema generates an infinite regress requiring ever-higher orders of mutual recognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the regress is not halted by some non-intentional conventional or contextual fact, the reflexive intention condition cannot be a finitely specifiable requirement on speaker meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Merely intending to cause a belief is insufficient for speaker meaning, since that belief could be caused in ways that do not involve the audience recognizing the speaker's communicative intention
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinctively communicative character of speaker meaning depends on the audience's recognition of the speaker's intention as the basis for forming the belief
      ?

      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.