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 connective 'because' is hyperintensional.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.