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 The argument from understanding cannot be straightforwardly applied to concepts and content.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The notion of failing to use a concept in keeping with its content is more problematic than the notion of failing to use a word in accordance with its meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.While it is unproblematic to speak of understanding or misunderstanding the meaning of an expression, in the case of concepts there is nothing corresponding to the expression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Concepts, unlike linguistic expressions, are not publicly observable tokens subject to intersubjective correction of misuse (Fodor, LOT).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a public medium of expression, the normative standard for 'correct application' of a concept collapses into the thinker's own dispositions, undermining any gap between use and correctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's normativity argument requires a fact that distinguishes correct from incorrect application, but for concepts this fact cannot be grounded in communal linguistic practice as Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's notion of sense as the mode of presentation of a concept's referent ties conceptual content to objective, mind-independent conditions, not to any individual's understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If conceptual content is Fregean and mind-independent, then 'understanding' a concept is not analogous to grasping a word's meaning—there is no shared social artifact whose correct use can be modeled or taught.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument from understanding presupposes a learnable, correctable practice, but Fregean concepts are abstract objects that one either grasps or fails to grasp without any intermediate notion of partial understanding.
      ?

      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.