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
    The connective 'because' is hyperintensional. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The connective 'because' is hyperintensional.

    CausationPhilosophy of Language
    ?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.Logical equivalents can sometimes explain each other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Double negation (~~A) is true because A is true, but A is not true because ~~A is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'because' were not hyperintensional, logical equivalents would be mutually substitutable in explanatory contexts salva veritate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The asymmetry of 'A because ~~A' versus '~~A because A' reflects a pragmatic preference for simpler explananda, not a semantic feature of 'because'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gricean maxims of manner predict speakers will prefer 'A' over '~~A' as explanans, making the asymmetry a conversational implicature rather than a truth-conditional distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the asymmetry dissolves under a pragmatic account, the failure of substitution does not establish that 'because' is hyperintensional in any robust semantic sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kit Fine's truthmaker semantics reanalyzes apparent hyperintensionality in 'because' as sensitivity to the exact ontological grounds of a proposition, not to sub-propositional syntax.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'because' tracks exact truthmakers rather than sentence structure, its discrimination between 'A' and '~~A' is explained by their distinct grounding conditions, not by hyperintensionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A connective that is merely sensitive to metaphysical ground-distinctions among necessarily equivalent propositions need not be classified as hyperintensional in the standard Nolan–Berto sense.
      ?

      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 LanguageCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A connective that is merely sensitive to metaphysical ground-distinctions among ...Double negation (~~A) is true because A is true, but A is not true because ~~A i...Gricean maxims of manner predict speakers will prefer 'A' over '~~A' as explanan...If 'because' tracks exact truthmakers rather than sentence structure, its discri...
    +6 moreShow less
    If 'because' were not hyperintensional, logical equivalents would be mutually su...If the asymmetry dissolves under a pragmatic account, the failure of substitutio...Kit Fine's truthmaker semantics reanalyzes apparent hyperintensionality in 'beca...Logical equivalents can sometimes explain each other.The asymmetry of 'A because ~~A' versus '~~A because A' reflects a pragmatic pre...The asymmetry of ~~A and A under 'because' shows such substitution fails.

    Similar

    If 'because' were not hyperintensional, logical equivalents would be m...80%The word 'because' can introduce either a causal explanation or a just...78%Indicator words such as 'because' can be used to signal an explanation...75%Explanation is hyperintensional, meaning expressions flanking 'explain...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: hyperintensionality
    View source passageHide passage
    Explanation is plausibly hyperintensional: “explains” can be flanked by expressions that cannot be substituted with necessary equivalents salva veritate. One pure mathematical truth can explain another, but not every mathematical truth explains every other, even if every pure mathematical truth is a necessary truth (Baron, Colyvan, & Ripley 2020). Schneider (2011) argues that sometimes logical equivalents can explain each other, making a case that “because” is hyperintensional. \({\sim}{\sim
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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