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
    The complexe significabile must be something mind-indepen... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The complexe significabile must be something mind-independent, although it is not an entity

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Gregory claims there are senses of 'something' (aliquid), 'thing' (res), and 'being' (ens) that can apply to the complexe significabile
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham's razor demands that positing mind-independent non-entities as truth-bearers multiplies ontological categories without necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Propositional truth can be fully explained by mental acts and their relations to concrete particulars, as Ockham's nominalism demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A 'something' that is neither a being nor an entity violates the exhaustiveness of the classical convertibility of 'being' and 'something' (ens et aliquid convertuntur).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Buridan's account grounds propositional truth in concrete token-sentences and their correspondence to how things stand, requiring no abstract significata.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the complexe significabile is mind-independent yet not an entity, it cannot stand in the causal or epistemic relations required for genuine cognitive access to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A purported object that escapes both ontology and mentality is epistemically inert, making it unable to explain why propositions are true or false.
      ?

      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 LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A 'something' that is neither a being nor an entity violates the exhaustiveness ...A purported object that escapes both ontology and mentality is epistemically ine...Buridan's account grounds propositional truth in concrete token-sentences and th...Gregory claims there are senses of 'something' (aliquid), 'thing' (res), and 'be...
    +3 moreShow less
    If the complexe significabile is mind-independent yet not an entity, it cannot s...Ockham's razor demands that positing mind-independent non-entities as truth-bear...Propositional truth can be fully explained by mental acts and their relations to...

    Similar

    Mind-independent entities cannot be mind-dependent entities79%Properties (mind-independent abstract entities shareable by multiple p...78%Gregory claims that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil)78%Abstract entities are not the kinds of things that could have mind-ind...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: gregory-rimini
    View source passageHide passage
    Gregory adopted Wodeham’s theory and tailored it where necessary to his own thought. The complexe significabile, once thought to be Gregory’s invention, is neither the proposition itself, nor individual things in the world, nor the arrangement of things in the world. The exact status of Gregory’s complexe significabile has been much discussed. In a nutshell, there are three main interpretations. The first one builds on Gregory’s claim that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil), and thus
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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