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
    'That'-clauses do not refer to sentences of any kind at all. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→'That'-clauses must refer to propositions.

    'That'-clauses do not refer to sentences of any kind at all.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    'That'-clauses do not refer to mentalese sentence types (established by extendin...'That'-clauses must refer to propositions.Anti-platonists cannot claim that 'that'-clauses refer to types, because types a...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    'That'-clauses must refer to propositions.84%'That'-clauses are best interpreted as purporting to refer to proposit...83%'That'-clauses do not refer to mentalese sentence types (established b...82%The sentence cannot be paraphrased into some other sentence that avoid...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    Now as it's formulated here, this argument doesn't rule out the view that ‘that’-clauses refer to mentalese sentence types, but the argument can be extended to rule out that view as well (e.g., one might do this by talking not of an American and a Russian but of two creatures with different internal languages of thought). I won't run through the details of this here, since, as we've seen, anti-platonists can't claim that ‘that’-clauses refer to types anyway, because types are abstract objects. B

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective