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 correctness conditions of concepts alone are not sufficient to establish CE normativity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In the case of concepts, the application relation holds merely between a concept and the objects that fall under it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For normativity to enter, a connection must be made with the subject who employs the concepts and with her mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Correctness conditions specify only extension-membership, which is a semantic relation obtaining independently of any agent's cognitive states or dispositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kripke's rule-following considerations show that no fact about extension alone determines how a rule ought to be applied in novel cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a subject-involving 'ought', correctness conditions yield only descriptive fit, not the prescriptive force that distinguishes genuine normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Brandom's inferentialist account demonstrates that conceptual content requires commitment and entitlement relations among agents, not merely satisfaction conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A purely extensional correctness condition is compatible with an infinite range of deviant applications, as Goodman's grue paradox illustrates, leaving application norms underdetermined.
      ?

      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.