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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The idea of reference-level propositions faces a reductio ad absurdum

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.False propositions in re could not be unities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unifying a proposition at the level of reference would require making it true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If there cannot be false reference-level propositions, there cannot be true ones either
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Russell's multiple-relation theory, propositional unity requires a relating relation that binds constituents, but reference-level facts lack this structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reference-level propositions just are facts, then Frege's distinction between a thought's being true and its merely having a truth-value collapses, undermining the very notion of propositional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Identity theorists like McDowell who equate true propositions with facts cannot account for the asymmetry between grasping a proposition and perceiving a fact without reintroducing a sense/reference gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vision's point that propositions must be abstract, mind-independent entities conflicts with reference-level entities being concrete, spatiotemporally located states of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If true propositions are identical to facts at the reference level, then, per Dodd's critique, the unity of a proposition must derive from the unity of the fact—but fact-unity is itself philosophically unexplained, generating a vicious regress.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42